.

.

IN SEARCH OF TRUTH

Comments on the Gospel and Modern Thought

by

ELDER JOHN A. WIDTSOE
of the Council of the
Twelve Apostles

Published by
DESERET BOOK COMPANY
Salt Lake City, Utah

Copyrighted 1930

By T. Albert Hooper
for the
Deseret Book Company

Printed in the United States of America
The Deseret News Press

-oooOooo-

PREFATORY NOTE

This writing is intended to serve as answer to numerous communications which for lack of opportunity have not been properly acknowledged. It presents, briefly, and without any attempt at systematic development, a well-known point of view, one which, though often ignored, helps vastly in the search for truth. It is really an attempt to answer the questions, What is science? How does the Church view science? and is therefore a general introduction to the more picturesque and perhaps more interesting analyses of current scientific doctrine. The youth of our day, in their approach to knowledge, are thinking for themselves. For that let us be grateful. And may they think straight, so that truth may not pass them by unrecognized!

CONTENTS

I. NEW LAMPS FOR OLD

Progress Welcomed
Exchanges of Minor Importance
Dangerous Exchanges
As the Twig is Bent
Results of New Knowledge
Clear Thinking
Reconciliation of Truth

II. THE FACTS OF SCIENCE

Definition of Science
Objects of Science
Observation
Use of Instruments
Experimentation
Measurement
Verification
Registration
Regularities
Natural Law
Basis of Science
Gospel Value of Facts

III. THE INFERENCES OF SCIENCE

The Mind
Explanations and Causes
Hypothesis and Theory
Scientist and Philosopher

IV. THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF SCIENCE

Limitation of Human Senses
Limitation of Instruments’
The Invisible World
Possibility of Several Inferences
Probabilities
The Assumptions of Science
The Responsibility of Leadership

V. EVOLUTION

The Facts of Evolution
The Law of Evolution
Origin of Life
Origin of Man
The View of the Church

VI. HIGHER CRITICISM

God, the Issue
The Text
Preservation
Making and Contents
Literary Form
The God of the Bible
Miracles
Events
The Spirit of Criticism
The Bible not Man-Made

VII. THE DUTY OF INQUIRY

Authority and Facts
Authority and Philosophy
Use of authority
Individual Authority
Our First Duty
Religious Inquiry
Example of Joseph Smith
Rational Inquiry
The Open Mind

VIII. THEORIES OF MEN
IX. THE WAY TO TRUTH

Desire
Prayer
Study
Practice
A Testimony

IN SEARCH OF TRUTH

I. NEW LAMPS FOR OLD

Aladdin of Arabian Nights fame secured an old battered copper lamp of magical powers. By it said he built himself a magnificent palace, acquired great wealth and became the son-in-law of the King. A wicked magician determined to secure possession of the wonderful lamp. With a supply of ordinary but new, highly polished lamps, he approached the palace, offering “new lamps for old.” Aladdin’s wife, who knew nothing of the uncommon properties of the old lamp, gladly exchanged it for a new one. Then Aladdin’s troubles began. Palace, wealth, and station vanished overnight.

This ancient tale is being retold in our modern times. Almost every day someone, usually honest enough, offers a new belief or thought, burnished and bright with newness, to replace convictions that we have long held and which have well maintained us. This always raises the question whether the old beliefs should be surrendered unless we are certain that the new offerings can serve us better. A careless exchange may result in loss or fearful consequences.

PROGRESS WELCOMED.

There is, of course, no objection to a thing or thought because it is new. this is a growing and increasing world; and as long as time endures, if we live well, progress will animate us. The mind must not be closed against progress. New light is constantly coming into the world, which should be received with gladness. The question is merely with respect to the validity and value of the new offerings. Are the old beliefs false? Are the new ones true? If true, are they of such fundamental value as to necessitate the required exchange? So run the questions that man must answer, if indeed he be an honest and progressive man. New beliefs should be accepted with care, but to refuse to exchange old error for new truth would be disastrous. the proffered exchange of a narrow for a more comprehensive conception of eternal realities wold be made with profit, and all right-minded persons should stand ready to accept such greater light. There can be no valid objection to changing one’s opinion on any subject, providing he changes from error to truth. In fact, many of the new opinions or beliefs are better than the old ones. But, of the truth of the new conception we must make sure; or we may find that the old is better than the new lamp.

EXCHANGES OF MINOR IMPORTANCE.

The new offerings are often of minor importance, as for example when they are old beliefs or practices in a new dress. There are not many fundamental thoughts; and they have been in man’s keeping from the beginning of history. questions concerning God, the origin of and destiny of man, the purpose of life and the extent of the universe, were asked by the fist man. they have been answered in every age to the partial satisfaction of many. Our new knowledge has brought confirmation and larger understanding of such fundamental conceptions; seldom has it displaced any of them. Restatements of such old truths are harmless enough. Speech changes with the centuries; and often an apparent change is only a new way of stating an old truth.

When new thoughts and opinions are of minor concern, such as new uses of old truths, or applications of new truths to old needs, to refuse acceptance is to be stubborn. to substitute an automobile for a horse and buggy, or a steel for a quill pen, or paper for papyrus, or sanitation for filthy surroundings, is well done, even if we find it difficult to yield our old habits to new ones. The relative value of the stage coach and the railroad can not be made fundamental in human conduct, though it may vitally change our manner of living.

it is important to discriminate when the new is offered in exchange for the old, between the essential and the incidental or desirable in human life. Essentials are spiritual in their nature; things merely desirable are of the earth.

DANGEROUS EXCHANGES.

In many cases, however, the new offerings strike deliberately at the foundations of our established beliefs. If accepted, many of them would destroy the means by which man has moved these many years towards peace of mind and happiness of life. Often it is impossible at first sight to detect the danger of such suggestions, for they are carefully worded, and have not been subjected to the test of life and experience. their truth has not been fully plumbed. Those who gaily and happily accept new opinions without inquiry, may soon find themselves in a state of misery, either expressed or silent. to such persons, the exchange of the old for the new has brought disaster. A new definition of God, a new theory of man’s relationship to God, or a new interpretation of the purpose of life, are matters which must be subjected to the severest tests of truth. One who loves truth cannot follow the multitude with respect to such matters. He must know for himself.

Since in every proffered exchange may lie hidden a thrust at fundamental truth, every offering must be examined. In appearance it may be beautiful, yet have a rotten core. In this day, a man who does not carefully weigh and consider modern issues has failed to catch the spirit of truth-seeking which has made possible our modern civilization.

AS THE TWIG IS BENT.

A new offering is none the less dangerous because it seems slight and modest in its demands. An accumulation of microscopic particles makes a mountain. “Constant dripping wears away the stone.”

It was slight but unweighed exchanges, in the early days of Christianity, that led to the great apostasy, and necessitated the restoration of the Gospel in this day. Each exchange seemed small and harmless enough, but when they accumulated throughout the years, they changed and corrupted almost beyond recognition, the simple, easily understood and life-giving doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ. Each exchange meant humanity’s loss, yet at the time they seemed reasonable enough. Why be baptized by immersion when sprinkling was so much easier? Why study the principles of the gospel when a preacher could do it for us? And so on, until the change was complete.

RESULTS OF NEW KNOWLEDGE.

this is a day of new beliefs, because it is a day of new knowledge. Of necessity we think and speak in terms of that which we know. Therefore, as knowledge progresses, our thinking changes or enlarges, unless, indeed, we fail to keep abreast of the new-won truth, and are content to be as one who does not understand the language of the land. A person who is obliged to depend on interpreters is in a most unsatisfactory and often dangerous condition for he may easily be imposed upon.

From the beginning, humanity has been adding to its store of knowledge. Sometimes the increase has been rapid, at other times slow. Occasionally, communities or whole nations have lost some of their knowledge, but on the whole, man’s stock of knowledge has increased with the years. The last century and a half have been characterized by the most rapid increase in knowledge recorded in history. Discoveries and inventions have crowded upon one another. The volume of truth accumulated during this period exceeds the total sum of truth previously gathered. Our progress in bringing truth out of its hiding place has been stupendous. New realms of the visible and invisible universe have been penetrated, with unfailing success. Application of the new truths are innumerable. Buggies and wagons have been crowded out by automobiles and aeroplanes; the pony express and the speaking tube by the fast mail and the radio; candles and lamps by gas mantles and Mazda bulbs; the spinning wheel and the hand loom by machine driven textile mills, and so on ad infinitum. What the end of the search will be, no man can foretell.

This marvelous progress has almost completely changed our physical living. Our intellectual horizon has been extended and our spiritual convictions deepened. Undreamed-of physical comforts, intellectual understanding and spiritual comprehension are the gifts of this new day. Naturally, we think and speak in harmony with these changed conditions.

Our modern advances are products of scientific activity. Science has shown herself possessed of unlimited power in winning truth to her side. In very deed, modern thought is thought which uses the facts, language, and conceptions of science. The new offerings are in the main children of the scientific laboratory. They are parts of the philosophy of science.

CLEAR THINKING.

So rapidly have the changes of the century come that we find it difficult to keep up with the procession. New discoveries, with new words and new conceptions, are constantly demanding the right to displace our older views. The new facts may well be accepted, but a multitude of partially formed opinions are presented, which require a nicety of discrimination.

Facts are harmless enough; but the inferences drawn from them, sometimes true, often false, may involve serious consequences. The biggest questions before the modern world concern themselves with the inferences drawn from the recently accumulated body of truth.

There is need as never before of simple tests by which the validity of new views may be determined. In this scientific age men and women should understand the processes and limitations of science; and should be able to test for themselves the doctrines drawn from scientific investigation. Confusion of thought lies back of most of our human discord; clarity of thought is a saving issue in any day. Our whole lives should expand with the progress of knowledge, but only under the guidance of clearness of vision and thinking.

RECONCILIATION OF TRUTH.

With an increasing body of facts there must needs be a constant demand for reconciliation among old and new conclusions. Such reconciliation should not be difficult, since all proper human activities aim to secure truth. Every person of honest mind loves truth above all else. In the proposed exchange of the new for the old, religion has often been n apparent conflict with science. Yet, te conflict has only been apparent, for science seeks truth, and the aim of religion is truth. That they have occupied different fields of truth is a mere detail. The Gospel accepts and embraces all truth; science is slowly expanding her arms, and reaching into the invisible domain, in search of truth. The two are meeting daily; science as the child; religion as the mother. Earnest attempts at reconciliation are rewarded with full success, Occasional failures are usually due to the mistake of alone trying religion, the more comprehensive and better established, by the newer and less dependable standards of science. Religion has an equal right to try science. Either method, properly applied, leads to the same result: truth is truth, whether labelled science or religion.

II. THE FACTS OF SCIENCE

Science is the most used and the worst used word of the day. Everybody knows that we live in a scientific age, for we have steam-engines and electric dynamos, railroads and steamships, airships and radio sets, and a multitude of wonders undreamed-of a generation ago. Therefore, everybody speaks glibly of science, as of a foster-brother, but as casually as we speak of a relative of whose inmost nature we have little appreciation.

Great truths have come to the world as a result of scientific activity. that goes without question. Much misinformation has also been paraded under the noble name of science. That perhaps could not be helped. But “handsome is as handsome does.” Whatever is scientific must conform to the definition and spirit of science. “Humbug is humbug,” said William James, “even though it bear a scientific name.”

DEFINITION OF SCIENCE.

Science is knowledge, all knowledge of mankind, systematically classified and arranged. The sum of human experience is the sum of scientific knowledge. To possess all truth is its hope; without increasing truth it perishes. It is never complete; it is ever increasing; “it knows in part and prophesies in part.”

“It is the spirit of man brooding over the stream of natural events that has given birth to science. For science is knowledge and knowledge is the result of mental activities operating upon a world of object.” (Wolf, Essentials of Scientific Method, p. 17.) The domain of science is illimitable. to know man is as much a concern of science as to know a beast, or a plant, or a rock. The nature of man is as important to science as the metallurgy of copper. Wherever methodical study and logical thought are employed there we shall have science. Only one condition is imposed upon knowledge by those who build science: it must be arranged systematically for the easier comprehension of man. The facts of nature organized about human life, that is science.

OBJECTS OF SCIENCE.

The pursuit of knowledge gives rare joy. Many of those who have been instrumental in building science have been so engaged for the sheer happiness it has given them. Nevertheless, whether consciously or not, they have recognized the four-fold object of scientific men – of science we may say.

The object of science is first to collect all existing human knowledge wherever or whenever gathered, and to assemble it for general use. The earliest books record travels undertaken to learn of conditions existing in distant land, and today, expensive expeditions are fitted out to seek out the knowledge that may be buried in the common places of strange nations.

The second object of science is closely allied to the first. It is the discovery of new knowledge, not possessed before by any people. The hunger for more knowledge has been the spur which has driven men, great and small, into scientific endeavor. The ecstasy of joy which accompanies the discovery of new truth has been the reward which has led men to sacrifice ordinary satisfactions and to face hardships for scientific careers. To increase the sum of human knowledge is the first object of science.

The third object of science is developed from the first two. New and increasing knowledge gives men new power over the forces of nature. The discovery of the principle of the lever made it possible for weak man to lift huge blocks of stone; the determination of the inherent power of steam gave to man a servant, under control, to do work beyond the unaided strength of man. The third object of science is therefore, to give men increasing control over the forces of nature. It is the realization of such new power in the many inventions of the day that has stirred the imagination of humanity; and such control probably gives as much satisfaction as the pure intellectual joy of discovery.

The fourth object of science is somewhat more intangible, but perhaps the most important, and results from the necessary and accurate methods employed by science.

“Science is a method of thought and work as truly as it is a body of information. Training in scientific method is the great desideratum. People are much more likely to have correct ideas of they understand and practice the correct method of ascertaining ideas. This matter of method is the very essence and kernel of natural science.” (Gager, Science and theology, pp. 35-36.)

Science has been built in the main by persons who have been devoted lovers of truth. Truth has seemed to them so precious a possession that it has justified their best efforts. But, a man who loves truth and seeks it, frequently finds that the new truth is in opposition to his former, cherished beliefs. Then if his love of truth be genuine, he must replace the traditions of his life with the new-won knowledge. Such open-mindedness, known as the spirit of science, is the fourth object of all who honestly engage in the advancement of learning. It is the spirit rather than the possessions of science that has helped mankind; it is this spirit rather than coming discoveries that will benefit the human race.

To gather existing knowledge; to discover new knowledge; to give man an increasing control over natural forces; and to make love of truth the greatest human passion – these are the objects of science.

OBSERVATION.

Science is founded upon the observation of the phenomena of nature. that which man observes becomes his experience and out of the facts of experience all human knowledge, which is science, is built. Observation is more than sight. We observe things or events when we apprehend them through the use of any of our senses. The basic elements, the facts of science, are obtained by the use of our senses.

it follows that science is man-made. Natural phenomena, as for example, the revolution of the heavenly bodies, would go on just the same whether or not man lived on earth. Therefore, the limitations of man’s powers are the limitations placed upon science. Yet, however weak or strong a man may be, the facts of science come by observation; he has no other means of obtaining them.

USE OF INSTRUMENTS.

The universe is vast. Man with his natural powers can explore only a small part of it. The stars are but luminous points to the unaided eye; and the world of minute life is wholly beyond direct sight. The visible is small compared with the unseen world. there is unseen light and unheard sounds of which we are wholly unconscious if we depend on our unaided senses.

Aids to human senses are necessary if we are to know anything beyond the narrow limits of our natural powers. Scientific instruments are such aids. “Without instruments we have only a peep-hole view of the universe.” (J. Arthur Thompson, Science and Religion, p. 39.) The telescope, photographic plate and spectroscope made modern astronomy possible. In physics, the chronometer and thermometer have been mighty helps; chemistry rests upon the use of the balance, and biology has been developed by the microscope and microtome. the progress of every science has been derived from the perfecting of some aid to man’s senses.

“What stretches before us is like a mountainous region covered with mist; through the mist there stand out the peaks that we directly know through our senses. The rest is unsensed. But of the immense mist-covered universe – unseen and unsensed – man has come to know much, almost as much of the peaks for by means of his instruments he is able to see the invisible.” (J. Arthur Thompson, Science and Religion, p. 40.)

In truth, there was no real scientific progress until instruments of precision and magnification were devised, and whenever a new instrument has been constructed, a new science or a new branch of a science has come into being.

The facts of science have been accumulated as the power of man’s observation has been increased by the use of instruments. Scientific progress is determined by the possession and use of suitable instruments.

EXPERIMENTATION.

Man’s power of observation is enhanced by yet another method. In the beginning of scientific enquiry, naturally occurring phenomena were the subjects of observation. Later investigators set up a number of conditions, under full control and observed the resulting phenomena. This is called the experimental method. The experimenter does not wait for natural phenomena to occur, but by setting up an experiment, secures results under controlled conditions. The use of instruments and experiments together has enabled man with his rather poor natural powers to master in an astounding degree the secrets of the unseen universe. Experimentation is the chief characteristic of modern science. It has added greatly to man’s power of observation.

MEASUREMENT.

Science demands that observation be accurate. Usually facts must be measured or given precise position in time or space. I ti snot enough to know that it rained. Science must know where it rained, at what time of the day or night, and how much water fell at a definite time and place. The unaided senses are seldom able to make accurate quantitative measurements. Two people will seldom agree on the weight of a piece of cheese, but using the scales will soon bring them into harmony. In the words of R.A. Millikan, “But after all, the evidence of our eyes is about the least reliable kind of evidence which we have. We are continually seeing things which do not exist, even though our habits are unimpeachable.” (The Electron, p. 7.) Measuring instruments of astounding refinement have been devised and made to meet this demand of science. Knowledge based on guesswork is not acceptable. It is not really knowledge. The use of measuring instruments has given certainty to scientific knowledge, and has been the chief enemy of superstition which fed and feeds on vague knowledge and unfounded suppositions.

VERIFICATION.

The search for truth is sacred. One must guard against error. The limitations placed upon man’s natural powers are such that it becomes necessary to repeat an observation or an experiment many times until full faith in the results is established.

Moreover, it must be possible for another normal individual to repeat the work and to obtain the same results. If two individuals doing work in the same manner do not agree in their findings, the results of both must be held in question. When, however, as is usually the case, hundreds of students repeat the work and come to the same conclusion, the results may with safety be classed as facts of observation. Honest accuracy characterizes reputable work in science. Very often, those untrained in scientific processes fail to understand the unyielding demand for accuracy and pseudo-science is born.

Verification is another important aid to human senses.

REGISTRATION.

The facts of science, gathered or discovered, measured, verified and established, are not of full use until they have been recorded or registered. Every observation must be written down, classified, and published.

Memory is treacherous. If our knowledge is to be trusted it must be preserved in written form. Record making is another important element in careful scientific work. For the benefit of other workers, the results should be published in widely circulated journals. In earlier days, when journals were few, scientific workers in different countries often had to traverse the same paths and make the same discoveries in order to make full progress. today, the prompt publication of every new discovery often saves much time for others working in the same field. The publication of scientific papers also facilitates the important work of verification. It is held to be a duty of scientific workers to publish their results fully and promptly.

An important part of registration is the classifying of obtained facts. Similar observations are grouped together. This has done much for scientific progress. Unassorted observations have remained of little value for generations, but when grouped and arranged by a competent worker have leaped into life and have moved science onwards.

Registration, consisting of recording, classification, and publication, is yet another aid to scientific progress.

REGULARITIES.

When many observations in the same field are carefully classified, definite regularities are usually found among them. A student of agriculture may take samples of soil at different depths and determine their moisture content. If the results from all samples taken at the same depth are grouped together it becomes evident that in a deep, well-drained and irrigated field, the moisture increases from the top downward to a certain point, after which it decreases. Unless the moisture determinations were properly classified, this regularity would not be observed. the human mind must group and classify to find order in apparent disorder.

One of the notable facts of science is that such regularities are found in every division or department of scientific inquiry. In fact, the incentive to scientific study vanishes to a large degree, if regularities in nature may not be expected.

“In the case of natural phenomena, of course, man cannot create order, he can only look for it, try to discover it, if it is there. But it is the need for order, as an aid to life, that prompts man to search for it everywhere. If he succeeds, well and good; if he fails to discover order, or some special form of order, in any realm of facts, then he modifies his expectation or maybe abandons it altogether, and turns his attention to other facts in the hope of discovering order there. Sometimes, indeed, the need for perfect order has been felt so keenly, in the face of the obdurate disorder of an imperfect world, that men like Plato and other idealistic philosophers have conceived an ideal, transcendental world over and above this world of ours. Here is shown, in an extreme form, the felt need for order which, in varying degrees, all intelligent human beings experience. And it is this felt need that always prompted mankind, and still prompts us, to try and discover in Nature.” (Wolf, Essentials of scientific Method, pp. 21-22.)

NATURAL LAW.

A natural or scientific law is the statement of the recognition of te regularity that appears when like facts in an investigation are grouped together. It is really a summary in brief of facts that have been discovered. Until the law connecting them has been brought out, facts hang as it were in the air, belonging nowhere in particular.

By observation through centuries it is known that as winter approaches, the sun moves southward, and as summer returns it comes northward. That is the law of the movements of the sun with respect to the seasons.

It is the major concern of science to elucidate the laws in accordance with which things or events happen. Facts in themselves have little value; but when so strung together as to bring out the recurring regularities, they reveal the law according to which they exist. Laws, the brief descriptions of innumerable facts, make comprehensible to the human mind the complexity of the universe, as well as the orderliness which prevails among universal phenomena. No person can remember all the observed facts in our possession; but most of the major laws derived from them may be understood and remembered.

the constant appearance of law in the study of nature is the most comforting gifts of science. Without law there would be no certainty in life. Under the same conditions one thing might happen today, another tomorrow. There is harmony and order throughout the universe.

“The best expression of this harmony is law. Law is one of the most recent conquests of the human mind; there are still people who live in the presence of a perpetual miracle and are not astonished at nature’s regularity. Men demand of their gods to prove their existence by miracles; but the eternal marvel is that there are not miracles without cease. The world is divine because it is harmony. If it were ruled by caprice, what could prove to us it was not ruled by chance?” (Poincare, The Value of science, p. 13)

BASIS OF SCIENCE.

“Science is a kind of knowledge reached by recognized methods of observation and experiment, registration and measurement. It limits itself by its own methods and though it is not confined to the study of the ponderable (for that would mean excluding psychology and physiology at the very least), it always depends for stability on some kind of measurement or registration. So it may be said that Science includes all systematized, verifiable, and communicable knowledge, reached by reflection on the impersonal data of observation and experiment. We mean by ‘systematized’ that science is co-ordinated knowledge, the multitudinous data in empirical terms. We mean by “Verifiable’ that its conclusions can be checked by all normally constituted minds when the observations or experiments are repeated with strict adherence to scientific methods.” (Science and Religion, J. Arthur Thompson, pp. 4 and 5.)

Facts based upon verifiable and verified observations form the basis of science. They are the building blocks of science, and there are no other. Failure to recognize facts as the only foundation of science is the cause of most controversies within science, or between science and religion.

To walk safely with science and religion, facts must be of first consideration. Every inference, every hypothesis or theory, is based upon and drawn from facts. The faith of science is in facts, not in conjectures, however valuable the latter may be as guides to new discovery. There would be no science without facts.

“For science is an objective study of the facts of nature. It uses any and all hypotheses which assist in correlating these facts, and its many hypotheses have had varying degrees of success in making such correlations, but science never commits itself as a matter of faith to any of them, not even to evolution. When it does so it ceases to be science.” (Millikan, Science and Life, p. 77.)

GOSPEL VALUE OF FACTS.

No one questions the value of facts. Properly secured and verified they become the permanent property of mankind, the blocks or means by which the progress of the race is made possible.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ accepts all truth. “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” There is no limitation placed upon the truth that may be accepted by the members of the Church. Every fact of science or of history or of any other department of learning is accepted by the Church. The only condition is that the fact that presents itself for admission must be sound – It must be a fact indeed.

At the same time it is to be held within clear vision that the methods employed so far by science in the gathering of facts, are not the only ones available. The eye and the ear, aided by the telescope and the telephone, encompass a vast world; but there are other senses through the use of which the acquaintanceship of a larger world may be secured. There are realities in the universe beyond eye or ear which are made known by the acuter, though perhaps less understood, senses of man. this is well recognized by science itself, which is even now invading this more subtle field. The behavior of the human mind, the basis of human conduct, the causes of social and economic phenomena, religion and the spiritual life of man, life after death, and such fields as not long ago were held to be outside the domain of science, are now being studied, lifted to scientific dignity, and called by scientific names. The accumulated convictions of humanity, for example that there is a God, are no longer scorned out of consideration, but accepted as convictions of high probability of truth, obtained by the use of senses which science so far has but partly learned to understand. Religion, the old-fashioned foundation of the spiritual life, is gaining in respect with every new-found fact of nature, for with every new discovery man is brought nearer to the unseen world which he has known these many generations.

III. THE INFERENCES OF SCIENCE

The inferences of science have received most public consideration, usually without recognizing that they depend upon the facts of science. There can be no objection to inferences made in honesty and in search for truth; but it is most objectionable to give them an undue and improper prominence.

THE MIND.

Science is a creation of man. It is the recognition by the mind through human senses of the realities of existence. The mind of man is a noble instrument, a pre-eminent possession, by which he becomes conscious, not only of his own existence, but of the conditions of eternal nature. By tests of mind, humanity is distinguished from the lower orders of life. The triumphs of science are evidences of the supremacy of mind – a supremacy which dominates all nature. The glory of physical conquests, of the sea and earth and air, have often dazzled men to such a degree that they have forgotten that back of all discovery and progress is the power of observation and thought. Without mind, there is no science, no progress, only extinction.

“We have spelt ‘mind’ with a small ‘m,’ for our values are human values; yet we trust there is even in us something that has value for the eternal. ‘The same was in the beginning with God … And without Him was not anything made that was made.’” (Religion, science and Reality, Needham, Editor, p. 217.)

This powerful and all-embracing instrument, the mind, not only brings facts into view, but seizes upon these to learn of their essential and very nature. It could not be otherwise. Thus comes speculation; which if guided and controlled may be of much human service, but which untrammelled and wilful may lead mankind into deep distress.

“When we hear one say too loudly, ‘All came from the protons and electrons of the primeval fire-mist,’ we answer firmly: ‘No, not from matter and energy only, but from matter and energy and mind.’ ‘In the beginning was Mind,’ and that same Mind is the light of men. We adhere tenaciously to the Aristotelian idea that there can be nothing in the end which was not also in kind in the beginning. And by no ‘joukery-pawkery,’ as Scots folk say, can ‘Mind’ be go tout of ‘Matter.’ If it seems to emerge, it is because it was there all the time.” (Thompson, Science and Religion, pp. 55-56.)

EXPLANATIONS AND CAUSES.

The regularities that appear when like observations are systematically grouped always arouse the interest of thinking people. Why? – is the first and common thought concerning anew law of nature.

The sun rises in the east and move westward over the heavens until sunset, when it disappears from view. There is the law. Why does the sun so move? the sun moves southward in winter and northward in summer. That is the law. What is the explanation of this recurrent regularity? Such are the first questions of the eager mind, and there is no rest until explanations have been found.

In time, a Galileo speaks. The earth revolves to the east upon an axis, daily; the dearth moves round the sun in an ellipse, annually, – therefore the apparent daily westward motion of te sun; therefore day and night; therefore the southward journey of the sun in winter and its return in summer.

Even such an explanation does not fully satisfy; for, another question follows: Why does the earth revolve about it sown axis and around the sun? After much conjecture and apparently fruitless discussion, a Newton proposes a reasonable cause. All thing sin the universe attract one another. The larger the bodies the greater the attraction; the farther apart, the smaller the attraction. The laws of the motions of the heavenly bodies are thus not only explained, but a cause is found for them. This goes still further to satisfy the cravings of the normal human mind for a full understanding of the experience of life.

Of course, the question may be asked and is asked, “What is the cause of universal attraction?” By pursuing the cause or causes to the last degree, we come to a land where human understanding cannot enter. The wise thinker knows and respects the limits of human thought. It is profitless to enter where there is no light. When light is obtained, that is when new facts are obtained, the darkest places may be explored.

“When, therefore, we think we have ‘explained’ natural phenomena by ascertaining their ‘causes,’ we have, in reality, only recognized the order of sequence of events. This is only a more accurate description of the phenomena and so ‘explanation’ is, in reality, chiefly only accurate description. this, inf act, is the fundamental problem of science – to describe natural events and their sequence as accurately as possible. When we have done this we should not deceive ourselves into thinking we understand the real nature of cause. Every scientist is aware of this limitation.” (Gager, Science and Theology, p. 13.)

Facts are won by observation aided by instruments, measurements and registration. The explanations and causes, or the meaning of the regularities of facts, are inferences quite different from facts.

“By inference is meant the formation of judgments, (beliefs and opinions) on the strength of, or as a consequence of other judgments already formed, it may be, on the ground of observation, or only entertained provisionally either for further consideration, or for the sake of argument.” (A. Wolf, Essentials of the Scientific Method, pp. 17-18.)

There may be facts without inferences but no inferences without facts. It is not always easy to distinguish clearly between fact and inference; but the essential nature of each is sufficiently clear to enable any careful thinker, not a quibbler, to determine whether he is dealing with a fact or an inference. There have been few differences concerning facts of science, but about the inferences of science storms of difference have often raged.

“It is interesting to note that these leaders in scientific discovery do not hesitate to acknowledge that their previous statements have been superseded by more recent discoveries. It is nothing derogatory to science that what is stated as facts today, may be modified tomorrow. This is true, however, only regarding the interpretation of certain discovered facts. Facts never change, but the inferences from them are changeable. For example, it can never be doubted that radium manifests certain forms of energy which until within recent years were wholly unknown; that it will discharge an electroscope; that it will kill certain disease germs and destroy living cells in the human body and accomplish a multitude of other feats. It is the knowledge of the how and the why, and other like processes, which fluctuates, and yet ever forges ahead, because of solid fundamental principles on which to stand.” (Tyndall, Through Science to God, p. 174.)

HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY.

Since inferences depend on facts, it follows that they change or may change as new facts are discovered. A fact, once established remains a permanent part of knowledge. Another fact only adds to the knowledge formerly possessed. This is one of the best distinctions between facts and inferences.

In the beginnings of science few facts were available, and the methods of securing and verifying facts poorly developed. In those days, the inferences drawn from such uncertain knowledge were highly speculative and really of little value. As the methods of science were improved, the inferences became more reliable.

Scientific inferences not only help in explaining the observed phenomena of nature, but they are also great aids in the progress of science. For example, when the law of gravitation was advanced by Newton, many other facts of astronomy pertaining to other bodies than the earth and the sun were also explained, and by such more complete understanding, new astronomical facts were more easily obtained.

It is a common scientific practice, therefore, as facts accumulate, to set up a possible explanation, even if it is only provisional, for it aids the mind in understanding the knowledge gained and makes suggestions for further progress. Such inferences are called hypotheses. The motions of the sun over the heavens and the recurring night and day, winter and summer, are regularities or laws; the explanation of these laws by the inference that the earth revolves upon an axis and moves around the sun was an hypothesis. the scientific worker uses hypotheses as a builder uses scaffolding and other temporary frames in the erection of a house. Occasionally, the hypotheses become so supported by increasing facts that no better inference can be conceived to take its place.

When another inference is suggested as a cause of the explanation proposed by the first hypothesis, we move yet a step further from the facts in the case. Such a second inference is called a theory. When Newton proposed universal attraction as the cause of the movements of the heavenly bodies, he set up a theory of astronomy. Laws, hypotheses and theories are used indiscriminately in common speech, and often they do overlap, but there is a clear distinction among them. A law is a description of the observed regularity of a group of facts. An hypothesis is the explanation of this law. A theory is the explanation of the hypotheses, an inference yet further removed from the facts upon which our thinking rests. Often the hypotheses and theories are the same.

“This is the way science advances: observation, description, comparison, generalization, hypothesis, theory. then more observation, with special reference to the hypothesis or theory. This is known as the method of the working hypothesis: it is also known as the method of multiple hypotheses. It is the most powerful intellectual tool for the discovery of truth known to man. It is the only known rational procedure for arriving at a correct understanding or explanation of the material world.” (Gager, Science and theology, p. 57.)

Every science has its facts, laws, hypotheses and theories. In chemistry, the law of multiple proportions declares that if two elements are combined to form more than one compound, the proportions of the two elements vary by simple arithmetical numbers. From this law John Dalton inferred the atomic hypothesis or theory, namely, that all matter is made up of small particles, one peculiar to each element. This inference has been the greatest single factor in the development of modern chemistry.

“An hypothesis is any tentative supposition by the aid of which we endeavor to explain facts by discovering their orderliness. All the methods of science may be said to depend on fruitful hypotheses. So long as it can be put to the test, any hypothesis is better than none. Without the guidance of hypotheses we should not know what to observe, what to look for, or what experiments to make, in order to discover order in nature. For observation not guided by ideas, is blind, just as ideas not tested by observation are empty.

Hypotheses or suppositions are, of course, used in every day life an din philosophy and in theology, as well as in science. In science, however, no hypothesis is seriously entertained unless it can be put to the test of observation, either directly or indirectly. Hypotheses may be true even if they cannot be tested or verified. On the other hand, hypotheses that can be tested by observation frequently turn out to be false, when so tested. Nevertheless, science has no use for barren hypotheses, that is, hypotheses which cannot be put to the test. Many hypotheses, which subsequently turn out to be false, were fruitful all the same, because they suggested lines of investigation which, though they led to the repudiation of those hypotheses, also led to the discovery of truths. But hypotheses which are barren at one time may become fruitful at a subsequent period, when suitable scientific instruments and processes have been invented. Thus, for example, most of the hypotheses relating to air were barren until Guericke invented the air-pump, and the chemists of the eighteenth century invented suitable processes for the analysis of air.” (Wolf, Essentials of Scientific Method, pp. 23-24.)

The careful man does not become so enamored of an hypothesis or a theory that he cannot distinguish it from a fact. the careless person often forgets this distinction, and thereby hangs the tale of many a misadventure in the world of thought and belief.

SCIENTIST AND PHILOSOPHER .

In the world of inference the individual plays a most prominent part. Careful and long continued training will enable almost any man of good ability to be a gatherer of scientific facts. A knowledge of the state of the subject under consideration, an acquaintanceship with the methods of research, some ingenuity in devising experiments and apparatus, care, industry, patience – and behold! out of the great unknown come truth upon truth, fact upon fact, to increase the sum of human knowledge.

Something more and rarer is needed to set up profitable inferences from available facts. to do this there is called into service the creative imagination. Facts and regularities are imagined in many and various relations and the most satisfactory is selected to be a working hypothesis or theory for the further development of the subject. With the mind’s eye Newton saw the planets revolving under the force of attraction; and Dalton imagined the atoms as the ultimate particles of matter. The gift of such an imagination is very rare.

When facts, laws and hypotheses are considered in their relations to one another and the world, an even greater and rarer gift is required, that of philosophic insight. Many of our current quibbles about science and religion come because a good gatherer of scientific fact may be an extremely poor philosopher. The discoverer of a new land cannot always visualize the future of the new country. Nevertheless, a man who has been successful in gathering new knowledge usually feels authorized to set himself up as an interpreter of that knowledge. this often leads to real mischief.

In the field of inference it is more necessary than in the world of fact to know the nature of the leader. Human nature is ever the same, and the scientist is tempted to color truth with personal bias, as when he sets out to defend an hypothesis because it is his product.

In the history of science it is true that many scientists of unquestioned ability in the laboratory have also been great philosophers. It is to these men that we owe the great generalizations that have moved science onward. A man with a stern desire for truth, who has the gift of philosophic insight, is the best type for the development of scientific hypotheses.

“It by no means follows that, because a man has won a name for himself in the field of natural science, his judgments on such problems as Socialism, Home Rule, or Biblical Theology will be necessarily sound. They will be sound or not according as he has carried his scientific method into these fields. He must properly have classified and appreciated his facts, and have been guided by them, and not by personal feeling or class bias in his judgments.” (Pearson, Karl, The Grammar of science, p. 9.)

The Church has no quarrel with hypotheses or theories. It merely insists that they be known for what they are – inferences from facts, and subject to change as new facts accumulate. It further suggests, respectfully, that until the facts give final certainty to the theory, the scientific philosopher refrain from presenting theory as fact to people untrained in science.

IV. THE TRUSTWORTHINESS OF SCIENCE

Science consists of facts, and of inferences drawn from facts. Both are essential in developing an acquaintanceship with nature. Both belong to the experience of every man, for the knowledge of mankind, whether labelled science or not, consists of that which we observe with our senses and that which we infer with the mind. The two may often overlap, yet they are distinct in essence.

The claims made for science by its devotees are many and far-reaching. Some of them tend to overturn completely the views and opinions of the past. A civilization, veritably new, has been produced in this scientific age. The demand for adaptation is often greater than human power. When these new demands go beyond the field of improved physical environment into the world of opinions, beliefs, and faith, it becomes necessary to inquire sharply into their validity. How trustworthy is science? Each major offering must be tested for its truth, before it is accepted as a guide in human conduct.

LIMITATION OF HUMAN SENSES.

The facts of science, the building blocks of modern thought, are won by observation. The keenness of the senses determines the sharpness of the observation. Very definite limitations have been placed upon the senses of man. With his eye he sees only a part of the universe. There are ether waves too long or too short to excite the sense of vision, yet they would reveal, could they be seen, an interesting part of the universe. The human eye sees only a fraction of nature. There are sounds so shrill or so low that they do not affect the ear drum. It is said that the unheard sounds of the universe are the most beautiful, could they be heard. The same may be said of the other human senses. Man lives in an illimitable universe, only a fraction of which may be recognized by his unaided senses.

Not only does man so live among invisible and unheard realities, but within the world allotted to him he sees and hears indistinctly. The trees and grass and flowers on the distant mountain are but as a green carpet to him. The singing of the birds in the distant tree is but a murmur to his ears. Even when thing are near, the imperfection of human senses is evident. A measuring stick laid along a given line does not give to the eye the same length every time the measurement is made. The difference may be slight, only a small fraction of an inch, but it appears and reappears.

Man’s remedy for the errors due to imperfect senses has been the repetition of observations by one and many observers. When many normal men observe alike, under set conditions, the results are accepted as facts of knowledge.

In view, however, of the sense limitations placed upon man, it is clear that an observer may easily be deceived; and it often happens that many are deceived by appearances that cannot be penetrated by unaided senses. The world is full of such observations parading as facts for our consumption.

At the best, science, built upon man’s power of observation, should be exceedingly careful in pasting the fact-label upon observations; and modestly and gratefully humble in presenting its facts for universal acceptance.

LIMITATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

Instruments have been devised as the first and most effective means of overcoming the very definite limitations placed upon human senses. With the telescope, trees and flowers may be seen upon the distant mountain side, and with a microscopic attachment the measurements of a given line come more nearly into agreement. The progress of science has corresponded very nearly with the development of aids to the senses. the invention of a new instrument has nearly always meant the birth of a new branch of science. The history of instruments to aid the senses would be a good history of modern thought.

However, while the telescope enables the eye to see distant objects much more clearly, it does not enable the eye to see everything in the distance. Every scientific instrument is definitely limited in its power of exploring its particular field of universal phenomena. By the use of the telescope, more but not all of the mysteries of the universe are revealed. Greater and greater refinements are sought, so that more powerful instruments must be built to reveal more of the universe.

However, imperfections similar to those that inhere in human senses characterize aids to the senses. The lens of the telescope tends to distort the image produced, and at its edges there are fringes of colored light that hinder clear vision. The chemist’s balance, capable, far beyond the unaided power of man, to determine the weight of things, is dependent for its accuracy on knife edges and scale pans, temperature, and surrounding air currents. No instrument is exempt from its inherent limitations.

In the use of instruments, it is always a first need to guard against error due to the imperfections of the instruments and the influence of surrounding unknown or uncontrollable conditions. Every observation by the use of instruments is under suspicion until the possible errors have been fully estimated.

While the possession of instruments enable us to penetrate more completely the region of the unknown, it does not relieve us from the necessity of carefully estimating the truth of our observations, and presenting them humbly for admission to the kingdom of fact. The well trained scientist realizes this, and applies every test to his finding before offering them as permanent additions to our body of established knowledge.

THE INVISIBLE WORLD.

In the domain of fact it may be said that we have only two concerns: to observe all we can with our unaided senses, and to observe as much more as we can with such aids to our senses as may be secured.

In the end, the aim of science is to secure a knowledge of that part of the universe not directly sensed. When the telescope was contrived the veil was lifted, so to speak, from the unknown heavens. The world of minute things revealed by the microscope is wholly beyond the reach of unaided vision. More and more the unseen world has been placed within man’s reach, as new kinds of apparatus have been perfected.

In this patient but courageous exploration of the universe, two things have become patent. First, man possesses the power to find ways and means by which the unknown may be made known; second, the unseen world is infinitely vast, so that it yields abundantly of knowledge whenever a seeker for truth ventures into a new field. Progress in penetrating the region of the unknown has been so astoundingly great that today we unhesitatingly go at new explorations with the certainty that new knowledge will be won.

“In the realm of organisms as well as in the domain of things, we have much to do with the invisible. It is not altogether easy to think of a beetle under a hundredth of an inch in length, and this is not the smallest size for an animal with a body. Within that small compass there are organs like those in ourselves – a brain, many muscles, a food-canal, a kind of heart, a respiratory system, and so forth. It is difficult to picture such minute architecture. And how impossible to picture the constitution of the egg-cell within which all that barely visible beetle lay implicit. But an hundredth of an inch is gigantic when we come to minute unicellular or noncellular organisms that do not build up any body.” (Thompson, Science and Religion, p. 41.)

A knowledge of the unseen world is the chief result of modern scientific effort. It is noteworthy that the existence of the unseen world into which science is rapidly entering has been declared these many centuries by religion. When we go beyond that which may be directly sensed by man, we are in a field declared by religion to be subject to man’s knowledge. That science has entered this world with physical instruments rather than with the finer instruments of man’s physical nature does not invalidate the claim that both systems of thought are operating in the same field of existence. In all our thinking it must be carefully remembered that the scientific structure that we build is only as trustworthy as are the instruments and observations that produced the facts from which we have built our science. The same holds true of religion.

POSSIBILITY OF SEVERAL INFERENCES.

The care that should be used in establishing the observations of science must be multiplied when scientific inferences are under consideration, for they are interpretations or explanations of facts.

This is due in part to the personal element involved in all kinds of interpretations. The experiences of mankind do not differ markedly, yet their meaning is conceived in a thousand ways. Just as no two pairs of eyes see the same phenomenon precisely alike, so no two minds interpret the phenomena of nature alike. It is possible to apply tests by which many persons are compelled to come to agreement respecting an observation under set conditions, but no such means exist to bring honest thinking men into agreement as to the inferences from the facts established. Each thinker must come to his conclusion independently. It must be, as it were, a conversion.

The reason is evident. The regularities of any set of observations may be interpreted in several ways. The daily westward trail of the sun may result from the motion of the sun around the earth, or the rotation of a spherical earth upon an axis. Before the earth had been circumnavigated, the doctrine of a flat earth could well be defended by the use of existing facts. The ancient Greek doctrine of a stationary earth and a moving sun may be used today to explain most of our astronomical facts.

Every scientific inference now held in repute is the one of several preferred by students of the subject, because it seems to fit in better with existing knowledge. But every inference now held in repute is subject to change as new knowledge is gained or better thinking prevails. Therein lies, or should lie, the essential difference between a fact and an inference.

PROBABILITIES.

When there are several possible explanations of a group of observations, which one shall be accepted and used? That question has to be answered over and over in the progress of science. Those who concern themselves with scientific philosophy undertake no analyze each proposed inference in terms of the known facts and laws. The interpretation to which most, though not necessarily all, of the accumulated observations point, is usually adopted. That is, the weight of probability determines the adoption of a scientific hypothesis and theory. Again, the fundamental distinction between a fact and an inference is emphasized.

As new knowledge is accumulated, the inference may be found inadequate and incorrect and is abandoned, or the new knowledge may confirm it continually, when it grows in probability of truth until it approaches a fact in its certainty. The degree of probability involved in a scientific inference should never be forgotten. If that were remembered we should have less loose talk about science and the domination of the scientific age.

THE ASSUMPTIONS OF SCIENCE.

In fact, the whole structure of science rests upon assumptions which if false make necessary a full reconstruction of our modern thought.

There was no modern science and no modern thought until the doctrine of cause and effect was accepted. At one time men believed that a natural phenomenon was independent of a cause. A given action might today result in one effect and tomorrow in another. Upon such a foundation no certainty could be built. Under such a belief, witchcraft, sorcery, and all manner of abominations flourished. Now, practically all civilized men believe that the surrounding conditions being the same, the same cause always has the same effect, whether now, or a thousand years from now. It is impossible, however, for us of this age to perform the experiments of an age to come. We can only say that whenever it has been tried it has been found to be true in every department of human inquiry that like causes have like effects. While this doctrine is an inference or assumption, yet its universal attestation in every field of endeavor gives it the force of final truth. yet it remains an assumption.

As knowledge has accumulated, another assumption has been established – one closely akin to the foregoing. In every division of learning the order that prevails in nature has been observed. The heavenly bodies move I perfect regularity through space; the orderly arrangement of electrons, atoms, and molecules constitute the reliable material world in which we live; the composition of a known substance is constant, and so on. In all scientific endeavor the assumption is made that nature is orderly, not spasmodic. The sun moves from east to west; does not without warning suddenly move from west to east. We live under a reign of law. Orderliness is characteristic of law. This, also, is an assumption, but one of such high probability of truth that it approaches the dignity of a fact. Many thinkers hold that the reign of law that prevails in the universe is sufficient proof that intelligence is the controlling power of nature.

“Perhaps no fact is more momentous than the uniformity of nature. Everyone realizes how necessary is steadfastness of character. One cannot deal with a man who is truthful today but lies tomorrow. Likewise it would be impossible for us to adjust ourselves to a capricious or whimsical world. But ours is a world of unvarying law. The sun does not rise in the east today and in the wet tomorrow; fire always burns; unsupported objects always fall to the earth; poisonous substances are always poisonous; spring always follows winter; children always have parents; effects always follow causes.

“Were it not for this unvarying uniformity we could not interpret the past, forecast (even to the slightest degree) the future, nor adjust ourselves to our environment. Health, happiness, commerce, science, education, life itself – all depend on the fact of the uniformity of nature.” (Gager, Science and Theology, p. 44.)

There was a time also, when it was believed that matter, and all things in the universe, were created from nothing, and by divine fiat could be annihilated. There was no great progress until that doctrine passed away. It is now held that matter, energy, and all the elemental constituents of the universe are indestructible. The eternal persistence of matter and energy stand by the side of the law of cause and effect and the doctrine of an orderly universe as corner stones of scientific progress. Yet, it must be admitted that these conceptions are only assumptions, but of such high probability that they cannot reasonably be questioned.

There is yet another assumption lying deep in the foundations of science, namely, that the observations of one man may be verified by another. Under this doctrine men possess like powers and may together bring knowledge out of the dark places of universal existence.

Attention is called to these assumptions upon which all of science is built as a reply to those who carelessly or ignorantly place science, a man-made thing, on a pinnacle of absolute and final truth.

THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADERSHIP.

It could scarcely be expected that the rank and file of humanity, busy with the daily cares of life, would familiarize themselves with the principles involved in scientific observation and thinking. the vast majority of people will continue to lean their opinions upon the teachings of those who have wide reputations for scientific knowledge.

“Well-meaning men without poise or any sort of scientific discrimination and highly trained and able men without conscience are about equally grave dangers to the wholesome development of human society.” (Millikan, science and Life, p. 75.)

If that be so, extreme care should be used by scientific leaders in sending abroad disputed views, as if they were facts of observation. Controversies involving scientific knowledge are always about inferences, very seldom about facts. Usually such a controversy concerns itself with the probability of the truth of a doctrine of science. The public does not understand this. Scientists on both sides, warm with enthusiasm for their inferences, defend their respective views with all their might. Stories of such disputes among men of science litter the pages of scientific journals – and that is the place for them. When such controversies are carried into the field of popular interest, the very spirit of science should forbid men of science from stating claims in such a manner as to mislead a public untrained in scientific logic. The recent controversies between science and religion have been most unscientific – and the scientists have often been quite as unscientific as the religionists. Dogmatism is unbecoming in everyone, but especially in a scientist. It is well for him to remember the probabilities lying at the foundation of science.

“But I am not going to place the whole blame for the existence of this situation upon misguided leaders of religion. The responsibility is a divided one, for science is just as often misrepresented as is religion by men of little vision, of no appreciation of its limitations, and of imperfect comprehension of the real role which it plays in human life – by men who lose sight of all spiritual values and therefore exert an influence upon youth which is unsettling, irreligious, and sometimes immoral. The two groups, the one in the religious field, the other in the scientific, are in reality very much alike. they represent essentially the same type of mind, or perhaps I should say, the same stage of intellectual development. Each interprets the Bible, for example, essentially literally, instead of historically, the one to support, the other to condemn. Both may be assumed to be sincere, but the one is wholly unacquainted with science, while presuming to judge it; the other is in almost complete ignorance of what religion is, while scoffing at it. I am ready to admit that it is quite as much because of the existence of scientists of this type as of their counterparts in the field of religion that the fundamentalist controversy has flared up today, and it is high time for scientists to recognize their share of the responsibility and take such steps as they can to remove their share of the cause.” (Millikan, Science and Life, pp. 42-43.)

V. EVOLUTION

The evolution squabble, undignified and often unfair on both sides, is a good illustration of the unscientific treatment of a scientific subject. It is not the intention here to unravel the various aspects of this controversy, but merely to analyze its parts in accordance with the principles already laid down. If more preliminary analysis had been given the subject for popular education, less contention would have resulted, and both sides of the controversy would have fared better, at least in the opinion of onlookers.

THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION.

As with every doctrine of science, the first question is concerning the facts from which the inferences are drawn. The facts of evolution are well known, widely published and easily understood. Among these facts, the following are of special interest.

Throughout the universe, there are gradations from the elementary to the more complex. Thus, in space there are vast unformed masses of particles, gaseous clouds, also matter formed into stars or suns, but in gaseous condition, and finally heavenly bodies that are solid and more like the earth. With the progress of knowledge there have been observed all stages of cosmic creation, from primeval particles unformed and unorganized to suns and stars and planets, formed, organized and cooling. So, also on the earth, matter is found in elementary states and in all manner of combinations to the most complex compounds found in living beings.

The history of life upon the earth as revealed by the fossil record forms became more and more complex. In the earliest rocks only elementary forms of life have left their fossil records; in the rocks laid down later, the fossil records show more advanced forms of life up to the most recent geological formations. This fact is one of the most commonly used in the evolution controversy. The story of paleontology is one of ascending life forms throughout the history of the earth.

The forms of life now existing upon the earth have many close resemblances. For example, man and the vertebrates generally have skeletal structures that are very nearly alike, bone for bone, and use for use. The muscles likewise are similarly constructed and placed. The nervous organization functions alike in man and in the lower vertebrates. There are other resemblances not quite so evident, as that the blood of man and of many of the lower animals reacts alike to chemical tests.

Comparative anatomy and blood tests indicate close resemblances between man and many lower animals, and among the different groups of the lower animals themselves.

The embryonic life of man is also used as a fact upon which the doctrine of evolution is built. The embryo of man is at first very simple. As it grows it resembles at various stages the embryos of various lower animals. Organs appear and after a time disappear, organs which remain permanently in the lower animals, until at last, man appears as we know him.

If all of existing creation is properly classified, it is possible to proceed from man, as the highest, by small changes to the lowest form of life. The one great difference, in such a classification, not yet bridged, is that of intellectual power.

Finally, for our purposes, wild animals and plants have been domesticated and often changed materially in bodily form as a result of domestication. And, in recent times, experimental biology has succeeded in affecting many surprising changes in life forms.

Such are some of the main facts of evolution in briefest outline. A vast literature sets forth in detail the facts around which the evolution controversy has raged.

No one, least of all the Church, objects to these facts if properly verified. They are all accepted, acceptable, and welcome. The work of gathering more knowledge in the field of biology is favored by the Church.

THE LAW OF EVOLUTION.

When the foregoing and all other existing facts bearing on the subject are examined, a certain regularity appears.

In space there seems to be a steady process by which unorganized matter is being organized into more and more complex forms. On earth, the elements tend to combine into more elaborate forms. The geological record points to a constant advancement among life forms. Present life seems in the main to move forward.

That is, creation as a whole has been and is moving forward, becoming more complex, evolving or progressing. Exceptions to the rule are in the minority and rather emphasize the usual order.

This regularity of progression in the universe from the simple to the complex, is the inference known as the law of evolution. It has been observed or felt form the earliest day. Before the Greeks, and throughout the history of thought, it appears and reappears. Modern science did not originate it, but emphasized it by the discovery of new facts. The law of evolution, thus stated, does not require that all things, all life, shall have a common origin. It merely declares that everything in the universe is moving onward.

The Church does not oppose such a doctrine of universal advancement. The doctrine or law of progression is one of the best established and best loved in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In no particular is the work of the Prophet, Joseph Smith, more in harmony with modern thought. Throughout all time man shall increase, progress, to a godlike destiny.

ORIGIN OF LIFE.

With the facts of life before him, man, naturally begins to speculate. The origin of life is perhaps the most interesting question that man propounds to himself, for if it can be answered, many other difficult questions at once find answer.

In such speculations the inference has been made that if there has been steady development of life forms on earth, they must have descended from a common ancestor. And that ancestor must have come as a faint spark of life from the accidental combination of materials in the primordial inorganic, lifeless slime, under favorable conditions of moisture and temperature. That is the inference set up by the proponents of the ultra-evolutionary hypothesis.

Note, however, that we are now in the realms of inference. Every intelligent mind, who cares to secure the facts, has pretty much the same right to draw his conclusions. As has been said, a good collector of facts may be a poor philosopher; and many a man in the street who has no scientific training may be a first class thinker. There is no reason why all should not examine for themselves the doctrine of the common origin of all life forms from one accidentally formed germ of life. Yet it is upon this inference, without proper specification, that much of evolutionary talk has centered.

The weaknesses of this hypothesis of the origin of life are evident. First it violates the doctrine which has the support of all observed facts, that only life begets life. Then if one such life germ could be formed, any number may have been so formed, for we have no right to say that only in one spot, among one group of molecules were the necessary conditions favorable. If many such beginners of life were formed, our life forms probably had different ancestral origins, which could account for many divergences not yet understood. One group of forms might have come up independently of another. Once that is admitted, the whole aspect of evolution is changed.

Moreover, we have no facts that deny the existence of life on other bodies in space. By the very processes of thought used in scientific investigation we are led to infer that there is life on other worlds. If so, germs of life may have been carried through space, settled upon earth and initiated life on earth. If one such germ could so come from other spheres, others might have come. This view has been held by many eminent scientists. Both Lord Kelvin and Von Helmholz, the foremost physicists of England and Germany in their day, held that life on the earth had come from other worlds; and Dr. Arrhenius, one of the masters of science in our day, wrote a book to show the possibility of such an origin of life on earth. Besides, there are many other inferences, by thoughtful, competent workers, concerning the origin of earth life.

No competent scientist can claim for the doctrine that all life on earth came from one germ, fortuitously formed in primeval days, that it is more than an inference subject to later proof. Those who hold to it tenaciously do so because they cannot think of a better inference that will square with facts to the satisfaction of their minds. But, it is a poor hypothesis, for it has so many alternatives and so few facts in its support. It has received undue consideration, for it has not been properly segregated and placed in the controversy about evolution.

ORIGIN OF MAN.

Another inference involved in the discussion of evolution, but really distinct from the hypothesis of the common origin of life, is that man has descended from the lower animals – that he also dates back to the chance assembling of lifeless matter, in the slimes of the earth’s beginning, into an organized form of life.

This inference is based, first, upon the structural similarities of the physical bodies of man and many of the lower animals; secondly, upon the gradually ascending nature of earth’s life forms as shown in the fossil record, with man as the latest and culminating figure; and thirdly, upon the discovery of remains of man-like beings dating back to the time of the glacial invasions of the Pleistocene era – tens of thousands of years before recorded human history began.

Conclusions based upon all three of these arguments are at best inferential, and should only be given such value by men of science when used in public discussion. They may appear to many to be the best explanations of the origin of man, but they are far from final. Other explanations may readily be conceived, and new facts may be discovered at any moment to invalidate the present hypothesis. The facts used and the inference set up are too far apart.

If, as has been suggested, the doctrine of the common origin of life rests upon an insecure foundation, the evolutionary doctrine of the origin of man suffers in like proportion for it does not follow as a logical necessity that structural resemblances prove organic relationships. The long story of life as read in the rocks is far from being full told. At best we make inferences to cover the gaps in the story.

The man-like remains of great antiquity found in various countries are undoubtedly genuine. Sometimes such few parts of a skeleton are found that the reconstruction of the whole individual implies considerable guesswork. But, those engaged in such labors are conscientious and while their enthusiasms may often run away with them, they are quite ready to admit mistakes a later knowledge appears. But, even allowing primitive, man-like beings on earth in early days, we cannot say with assurance, except as we favor the inference, that man has descended from these beings.

The whole question as to the origin of man from the point of view of science must be admitted to be as yet in a state of uncertainty. The doctrine of organic evolution is one explanation, but there are many others. Again, the difference between a fact and an inference must be sharply maintained.

The doctrine of the origin of man as held by the church has not suffered from the advancement of modern biology, anthropology and archaeology.

THE VIEW OF THE CHURCH.

The Church, which comprehends all truth, accepts all the reliably determined facts used in building the hypothesis of organic evolution. It does not question the observed order of advancement or progression in nature, whether called the law of evolution or by any other name. In every field, the Church encourages the search for knowledge and welcomes each new fact as it appears.

The inference from the facts and law of evolution must however, be treated as hypotheses or theories. They must be weighed by the logic of the mind; the probability of their truth must be sought; and credence given them in due proportion to the evidence secured. They must be tested by other truth already firmly established.

The doctrine of organic evolution, as any other inference of science, is subject to constant change, with the development of new knowledge. It has already changed so much that to treat it as an established fact and to build a course of conduct and belief around it, is both foolish and unscientific. If the difference between fact and inference had been held clearly in mind, much of the absurd talk on the subject would have been eliminated. While all men of learning accept the facts and general law of evolution or the law of progression among living beings, there are differences among the leaders of thought respecting the inferences regarding the origin of life and the origin of man. One need only consult the current periodicals and recent books to learn that divergent views are held concerning the probability of truth in these inferences.

The Church, by its own methods of winnowing truth, real and true to hosts of men and women who have used them, declares that man is an eternal being. That which he is, is everlasting. It had no beginning; it cannot end. Man is not inferior in eternal quality to the elements of which he is built. As an eternal being he lived before he came upon earth. He was begotten in that pre-existent state by God, whom we worship as the creator of the earth, and the Father of our spirits. From the beginning, man has been man. How the eternal spirit of man became associated, first, with the mortal body is not known; nor is the whole career of mankind on this earth known. But man was always man; else he is not eternal; nor a very child of God. True, upon the earth, as in the time before this, he is subject to the unending law of progress, and throughout the endless ages he has developed and progressed, but his relationship as a child of God has always existed.

This doctrine does not conflict with any fact of science; it clashes only with certain theories acknowledged to be inferences from the facts in our possession, and subject to change as knowledge advances. It is a doctrine that can be most easily comprehended by a human mind not rendered near-sighted by laboratory walls or preconceived ideas. It does not abrogate the law of evolution in its proper and wide sense.

In this age of advancing knowledge we must not allow our vision to become earth-bound. The heavenly bodies are not so far away as they seemed a generation ago. Besides, assuming a God who really has power in the universe and love for humanity, who is something more than the impersonal sum of natural forces, the doctrine of man’s earth-origin, as held by the Church, need not be a stumbling block to intelligent, forward-looking, progressive persons.

No one should exchange the evidence of generations for a hypothesis, unable to stand without the scaffolding support of men who themselves differ as to the truth that may come out of the search. In the case of present-day views of the origin of man, the old is better than the new, no matter how bright and burnished the modern offering appears to be.

It must always be remembered that only a part of human knowledge, accurate and dependable, is obtained by the use of physical instruments. Man possesses many powers of spiritual but reliable nature, by the use of which knowledge may be garnered.

VI. HIGHER CRITICISM

In the field of modern thought the so-called higher criticism of the Bible has played an important part. The careful examination of the Bible in the light of our best knowledge of history, languages and literary form, has brought to light many facts not sensed by the ordinary reader of the Scriptures. Based upon the facts thus gathered, scholars have in the usual manner of science proceeded to make inferences, some of considerable, others of low probability of truth. These have been heralded far and wide and among those who prefer to follow than to investigate for themselves, groups of adherents have been formed for or against the various Biblical hypotheses derived from higher criticism. The commanding place of the Bible among Christians has made these controversies of especial concern.

To Latter-day Saints there can be no objection to the careful and critical study of the scriptures, ancient or modern, provided only that it be an honest study – a search for truth. The prophet Joseph Smith voiced the attitude of the Church at a time when modern higher criticism was in its infancy. “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” This article of our faith is really a challenge to search the scriptures critically. Moreover, the Church had just been established, when Joseph Smith under divine direction set about to revise or explain the incorrect and obscure passages of the Bible. The work then done is a powerful evidence of the inspiration that guided the Prophet.

Whether under a special call of God, or impelled by personal desire, there can be no objection to the critical study of the Bible.

GOD, THE ISSUE.

Acceptance of God as our Father under whose direction we are upon earth, leads to one use of the facts of Biblical criticism; rejection of God leads to quite another. Higher criticism as an issue in modern thought is essentially concerned with the question of the existence of God. Many of those who have pursued higher criticism have done so to find support for their atheism, and the views of these have been heard more widely than those emanating from believers in God.

THE TEXT.

The results of all sound scholarship are welcomed by Latter-day Saints. Higher criticism is not excluded. To us, however, the most certain fact, the best authenticated and the most demonstrable, is the existence of God. This knowledge cannot be laid aside in any human research.

From the beginning of the human race the Lord has spoken to and inspired His children on earth. Thus, truth has been among men from the first day. At various times men have been moved upon to commit to writing the eternal truths pertaining to man’s existence. Thus have come the Holy Scriptures.

The Scriptures have been given by God and under His direction; but in the language of man. It has always been so. In this day, the Lord speaking to Joseph Smith said, “These commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” that is, the Lord does His work in our behalf through earthly instruments. Naturally, therefore, in outside form there may be many errors, but in inner substance the eternal truth is preserved for those who can read the language understandingly. This doctrine has been stated in unusual beauty by Moroni – “thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.” In such a manner has come the text of the scriptures.

As these early manuscripts, before the days of printing, were copied by hand, often by unbelievers who did not respect the text, errors and changes crept in. When we believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as it had been translated correctly, we refer to all changes, in all transcriptions and translations, back to the very original manuscripts. The Church therefore is in full harmony with the avowed purpose of the higher critics.

PRESERVATION.

The scriptures contain the most precious truths of humanity. They give the most complete exposition of God’s law for human conduct and destiny. Without them, the earth would be poor indeed.

it was part of the purpose under which man dwells on earth that the plan of salvation, which its included principles, should be revealed to men from the beginning. The scriptures are as a gift from God. They not only contain the story of man’s own devices; but of the dealings of the Lord with His earthly children. Thus our Father in Heaven is better understood.

Accepting the existence of God, and the doctrine that the Gospel truths were deliberately taught to men, it can not be believed that the Lord would allow these precious gifts to be wholly lost, and thus leave the children of men at any time without a witness for him.

Throughout the ages, therefore, amidst all the vicissitudes of time, the Holy Scriptures have been preserved, and though mutilated by careless men, they yet bear amid their human imperfections and errors, the message of God’s nature and of man’s relationship to deity, and of the eternal and glorious destiny of mankind.

The scriptures have never been wholly at the mercy of man.

MAKING AND CONTENTS.

The Bible story represents long periods of time. It is made up of many books written by many hands. In these respects it is like the Book of Mormon. We do not always know with certainty the authorship of the books. It may be that through the years the authorship of collections of writings may have been credited erroneously, or in default of knowledge, to the outstanding figure of the day.

It tells the history of a people which by its own actions passed through periods of progress and degeneracy. The manner in which the Lord dealt with these people is everywhere set forth. Its teachings are universal, and may be applied to any people in any land in any time.

The Bible is not a treatise on science. Naturally, the knowledge of the day is reflected in the telling of the story; but the events recorded deal primarily with principles of conduct before the Lord and before man, which are independent of mere secular knowledge. The Bible is not read well, unless the manner and the purpose of its making are kept in mind.

LITERARY FORM.

As in all good books every literary device is used in the Bible that will drive the lesson home. It contains history, poetry and allegory. These are not always distinguishable, now that the centuries have passed away since the original writing. The ideas in the Bible, the fundamental, constant ones, are true; the vehicle is human and often confusing. Much needless discussion has come about because critics would not separate the message from its form of presentation. Latter-day Saints strive to read the Bible intelligently. Brigham Young asked the pertinent question: “Do you read the scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them, a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them?” That is the only way by which the variety of the Biblical style and form may be understood; but the essential moral doctrines presented are clear without such scholarship, to every reader.

THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

A vast amount of unnecessary quibbling has been indulged in concerning the God of the Bible. The Divine Being who was in the beginning, who is our Father, is the God throughout the Bible. But, he deals with this earth through His Son Jesus Christ, known to ancient Israel as Jehovah. The Book in its present form does not always make this distinction clear, and interminable arguments have developed concerning the divine names used in Holy Writ.

The Lord revealed Himself to Adam, to Abraham and to others. Full knowledge of the Lord was had by these ancient worthies. The written word of necessity is less complete than was the spoken word. Then there were times of comparative darkness, when the understanding of the character of the Lord waned, as in the days of the Egyptian captivity. There was also, clearly, an increasing understanding of God, his attributes and relationship to man, as the centuries rolled on. Under the law, righteous mankind increases in knowledge.

All this stands revealed on the pages of the Bible. Many students having observed the increasing understanding of the one God among Israel, have concluded that Jehovah was but an outgrowth of the man-made gods of the pagan people of the early days of Israel. This belongs to the class of inferences elsewhere discussed. It is an hypothesis of no certainty.

MIRACLES.

Higher criticism, especially by unbelievers, has much to say about the miracles recorded in the Bible. Not so much is said now, for this age is one of miracles, surpassing many of those recorded in the scriptures. In an age of radio, it is scarcely becoming to rail at the still small voice that spoke to Elijah.

The acceptance of God as an active director of human affairs, within the limitation of man’s free agency, explains miracles. The maker of the heavens and the earth should find it simple so to utilize existing forces as to make events seem miraculous. That which we do not understand is a miracle to us. When the principles involved are explained its miraculous nature vanishes.

Yet there is no reason why the so-called miracles in the Bible should not be weighed by human intelligence. Is the recorded miracle a real event, or a literary device of teaching, as an allegory or a parable? In some cases that may not be susceptible of determination. The whole of Holy Writ, miracles included, is susceptible of interpretation. Of one thing we may remain certain, that none of the miracles of the Bible are beyond explanation. The increased knowledge of our day is making the miracles of old seem as the common places of today.

EVENTS.

The events recorded in the Bible must be read in the same intelligent manner. Every recorded event should be read and interpreted in the light of the times when it occurred. In every age man accepts inspiration according to his understanding. The Lord commands and man obeys as he understands the request. Man’s free agency is never forgotten by the Lord. Thereby hang many explanations of human conduct throughout the long history of mankind.

THE SPIRIT OF CRITICISM.

Higher criticism is not feared by Latter-day Saints. New facts with regard to the Bible are eagerly sought. Suggested inferences are respectfully considered and accepted or rejected, as they merit. Least of all do Latter-day Saints accept every new hypothesis of biblical origin or history. As has been said, we distinguish carefully between facts and inferences and claim the right with other intelligent people to determine for ourselves the weight of probability of the truth of any presented opinion.

The only worthy criticism, whether of the Bible or of any other human possession, is one that seeks for truth. There is a class of students who always seek for the errors in things. Such negative critics become menaces, for they find the errors inherent in all human works, and fail to note the truths. The positive critic searches for the truth in the book or the science, or the man he studies; naturally, he discovers the errors as he moves along; but, out of his search comes a balanced judgment. It is by our strength, not by our weakness, that we are to be judged. We are not concerned with the mistakes of Moses”; we need to understand his successes, if we are to know how and why Israel entered the Holy Land.

Destructive Biblical criticism leads nowhere. Constructive biblical criticism enhances greatly the joy of reading and studying the book of Books. All knowledge should be applied in the study of the Bible, but the labor should be approached in the true spirit of science – as a search for truth, and with a prayer for truth. Thus, bidden, truth always arrives.

THE BIBLE NOT MAN-MADE.

Finally it may be remarked that the attempt to ascribe to the Bible a purely human origin has not been successful. The multitude of men have not been convinced that the facts gathered by higher criticism are sufficient to destroy faith in the divine source of the Holy Scriptures. Note the statement (in 1928) of an eminent thinker, Dr. J.A. Fleming, R.F.S.

“Superhuman origin and Divine authority (of the Bible) are supported by four great lines of argument which cannot be refuted. There is first the unity and uniqueness of this literature. There is no other literature of any ancient people, the production of which was spread over 1000 to 1500 years, and coming from the pens of more than three-score human authors, which has the peculiar character that when put together it seems to make one book and not many, and that all the parts elucidate and explain each other.

“Then, in the next place, this literature has a singular tone of authority. It does not argue or demonstrate; it simply states or asserts.

“The third great evidence is in the predictive element of it. No efforts of the higher criticism have been able altogether to disguise the fact that there are predictions of events in it, and fulfilments of them at later dates. The history of the race, the Hebrews and Jews, with whom this literature originated, are the ever-enduring witness to the inspiration of the Scriptures.

“Then, lastly, there is a peculiar and supernatural force or power about its words. A simple verse of it seems to carry more appeal to, and food for, the human spirit than libraries full of merely human words.

“What astounding power it possesses to arrest attention, convict of sin, bring assurance of forgiveness, create hunger and thirst after righteousness, and rob death itself of its terrors.

“There is no man-made literature which possesses the smallest fragment of this power.”

VII. THE DUTY OF INQUIRY

The increasing body of human knowledge and derived conclusions, raises important questions. Shall a man accept new facts and inferences upon the authority of those who stand high in their respective fields of knowledge? Or, shall he attempt to determine for himself whether the new offerings are true or false?

AUTHORITY AND FACTS.

Certainly, no man can in person survey the whole field of knowledge and check upon the accuracy of the multitude of observations that form the ground-work of science. He must of necessity depend upon the honesty, care and skill of those who, as trained experts, are advancing the boundaries of learning. When a man of high standing announces a new discovery we are justified in accepting it with little question, but when the announcement comes from one of lesser renown it is well to withhold judgment, until the consensus of scientific opinion favors the discovery. Every new scientific observation is sooner or later repeated by others, and only when many persons have confirmed it, does it rise to the dignity of a fact. Even the discoveries of those who stand highest in the scientific world are not exempt from such scrutiny. For example, some time ago, Dr. R.A. Millikan announced that he had discovered a new powerful radiation, which he denominated cosmic rays. Promptly, other investigators undertook to check up on Dr. Millikan’s results. Ultimately the accuracy of the observation will be confirmed or disproved. The facts of science ripen with age. We can afford to accept those that have stood the test of years.

Authority has its distinct limitations, even in the field of discovery.

AUTHORITY AND PHILOSOPHY.

The conclusions or inferences drawn from the facts of science can seldom be accepted upon bare authority. Such conclusions are the product of thinking rather than of observation, and all intelligent men may and should think clearly. Experts in gathering facts do not always use their facts as well as do common men. Usually, the larger conclusions of science project into the very structure of our beliefs and opinions. No one is justified in accepting off hand, upon the authority of others, views that may shape conduct or determine daily happiness. Some men have concluded from the order observed in the universe that there is no God; others, that the orderly movements of the heavenly bodies confirm the belief in God. One does not need to be a trained astronomer, familiar with instruments of precision and the higher mathematics, to reason upon the facts of astronomy. Given a reasonable familiarity with the findings of modern astronomy, and anyone should be able to decide for himself whether they indicate the existence of a supreme ruler. True, as more capable persons accept a conclusion, the more justified we are in accepting it, but undue leaning upon authority in matters that we can decide for ourselves is always dangerous. Only the gullible swallow an opinion simply because someone has labelled it science.

USE OF AUTHORITY.

Old Opinions are subject to similar treatment. Holding to a certain belief for many years does not give it validity. The question must always be, – Have we, for ourselves, examined this or that belief and to the best of our ability found it true and worth retaining? Unverified opinions, cluttering our minds, have no more right than new opinions not subjected to inquiry.

Of course, in days of youth or until we have attempted our own solutions we must lean our opinions upon those in authority. We must not cast off all belief because it has not been verified by us. The process of verification is often long and tortuous. Thus the younger members of a family accept, until they are maturely able to settle matters for themselves, the teachings of their parents and older people; likewise, accept the guidance of those who are wise, until they have had the opportunity to make careful inquiry into the matters at issue. We must be anchored either to those of authority or to our own sober findings.

INDIVIDUAL AUTHORITY.

But can a man, not a specialist, determine for himself the truth, say of a scientific theory? Yes: and no proposition of consequence in human life can properly ask for consideration unless it is susceptible of analysis and proof by the person to whom it is offered: it is a characteristic of truth that it may be understood by the average human mind. In fact, it is doubtful if any statement which confuses the mind is true. Science is built up of a multitude of observations or facts, each easily understood. It is the number rather than the quality that overawes us. The conclusions drawn from these many facts are always simple, and within human comprehension. Personal responsibility for the opinions we hold can not be shifted on the ground that truth cannot be understood. The more certain the truth, the simpler it is, and the more easily understood. Therefore, a man may know for himself.

OUR FIRST DUTY.

Truth is the most precious of the possessions of man. It is holy. By its use alone can man realize his deepest hopes and achieve his highest destiny. Always, truth brings happiness; and untruth, misery. This is equally so in physical, mental, or spiritual affairs.

The search for truth is, therefore, our first and highest duty. Whatever a man’s labor may be, he must make sure that it is founded in truth, and he must, always, eagerly and with all his might seek for new and additional truth. Since error often masquerades as truth, and since our preconceived ideas, our traditions, tend to becloud our brains, he must be on guard against involuntary deception. It is pitiful to seek truth, honestly, then fail to recognize it as it passes by; and finally to accept error by mistake. Truth must be verified, by personal effort, before it is incorporated into our lives.

As long as men were content to accept opinions without verification, the dark ages ruled the world. There was no progress. Our modern day, with its countless blessings, dawned when men recognized their duty and asserted their right of personal free inquiry concerning all matters affecting their lives. As the responsibility of that duty and that right has been felt by men, every human concern has prospered. Men inquired into the nature of the universe and science was born; they inquired into man’s relationship to God, and religious freedom was born. Every forward step has been the result of inquiry. The duty of inquiry is merely the duty to search out truth.

RELIGIOUS INQUIRY.

The view has been expressed that man’s inquiry should stop short of matters of religion. That can not be so, for the aim of religion is but to reveal the truth concerning God, man, and the meaning of life, that is, the truth of all things. By its very definition, the Gospel includes all truth, therefore, the searcher after scientific or any other truth, to a degree, is searching out religion. Certainly it is the duty of man to seek spiritual truth and to seek it for himself. The authority which exists in the Church, does not relieve a person from learning the truth of the Gospel for himself; it is rather an aid in that pursuit. In fact, it is a Gospel requirement that every person should know the truth of the gospel for himself. He may only know a part of the whole truth, but, as far as he goes, he should know for himself. Salvation is an individual matter. “Blessed are thou – for thou hast inquired of me.” (D. and C. Sec.14.)

The basic doctrine of the agency of man confirms the view that the duty of inquiry concerning truth rests upon every man. Every living soul is a free agent. That was determined in the Great Council before the foundations of the earth were laid. In the words of Lehi, “wherefore, men are *** free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great mediation of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil.” (2 Nephi 2:27.) Such freedom could not be exercised unless men had the right to inquire into all truth as a precedent to choosing for themselves. The doctrine of progression, likewise, implies that man must add truth to truth, not merely by being told, but by verifying each new truth to his own full satisfaction. There is a vast and ample scriptural confirmation of the duty and right of inquiry.

EXAMPLE OF JOSEPH SMITH.

Joseph Smith, the Prophet, set the example. He relates that in his fifteenth year there was a great religious revival in his neighborhood. The people were contending some for one church, some for another. Four of his father’s family, including his mother and his older brother Hyrum, had joined one of the proselyting churches. He kept aloof from all of them, for “so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong. *** In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself, ‘What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? or, are they all wrong together?’ While I was laboring under the extreme difficulties caused by the contests of these parties of religionists, I was one day reading the Epistle of James, first chapter and fifth verse, which reads: ‘If any of you lack wisdom let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.’” He then sought the Lord, and received the marvelous First Vision which initiated the Restoration of the Gospel in these days. Certainly Joseph Smith recognized the duty and exercised the right of inquiry.

Brigham Young, likewise, recognized this principle. He says: “All rational beings have an agency of their own, and according to their own choice they will be saved or damned – the volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence.”

RATIONAL INQUIRY.

The duty and right of inquiry may however be used properly or improperly, depending upon the motive actuating the investigation. There may be constructive or destructive inquiry. A destructive inquiry is usually a search for error and weakness. All things under man’s dominion are imperfect. Well as it is to know these imperfections, it is better to know the truth that resides in human accomplishments. Whoever goes through life searching for error, (and of course finding it)misses the obvious truth that lies in his way. Soon his senses become impaired and he relishes only the taste of error. Constructive inquiry has moved the world onward. Truth is stamped upon the structural units of our modern civilization. In the search for truth, error is the chaff blown from the grain. And indeed, it is by the token of truth that error is best recognized. Many men are fooling themselves by looking for flaws in their church or nation. By seeking truth and trying its value by faithful use they would come to sound conclusions. A good citizen, whether of business, state or church, in the exercise of his right of inquiry, seeks out and uses that which is good and soon discovers by elimination that which is mean and ugly and finds also remedies therefor.

Alchemy and astrology, founded in error, have brought only unhappiness and confusion into the world, chemistry and astronomy founded in truth, are among the world’s great blessings. The danger that lurks in the destructive attitude of mind is consuming – it destroys most completely the one who harbors it. We find that which we seek.

THE OPEN MIND.

The open mind is the sign of growth and progress. To stand before the known and undiscovered universe, in full desire for truth, and ready to accept it, insistent only that it must be the truth and nothing else, that has been and ever will be the attitude of those who have done most for the human race. The open mind is ready to accept truth; but more ready to reject error. It tests and tries; it verifies and makes certain; it philosophizes and prays; then it goes on its way rejoicing, ready for more truth at the next turn of the road.

And those who love truth will yield themselves to it, with gratitude in their hearts.

VIII. THEORIES OF MEN

I was in the library of Congress. I had sought out the alcove in which the Librarian places the best recent books – those that contain the serious thought of the age. Looking down upon me from the top shelf were selections from the writings of two of the most successful university presidents of America. Biography, criticism, philosophy, religion, art, science, and travel crowded the shelves. It was a place to meet the many minds of this day. And so, I proceeded to browse.

I. Times certainly have changed, said I, as I turned the pages of the books. A few hundred years ago, when science was in its swaddling clothes, the opinions of men, unsupported by facts, but maintained by antiquity and authority, swayed the thoughts of mankind. Then it was possible to believe and to build one’s faith upon it – that mice were generated by musty linen, that the earth was flat and that hook-nosed witches rode on broomsticks through the air to visit his satanic majesty. All that one needed was to set up some imaginary system, such as that all things happen in a sequence of sevens, and to reason upon it, and lo! he had conceived a philosophy, fit for public consumption. Theories of men held the center of the stage, and, as a result, superstition and its concomitants, fear of spirit and blindness of intellect covered the earth. We speak of those days as the Dark Ages.

II. Now the day glories in certain and verifiable knowledge, and as I looked them through, the books revealed on ever page the basis of the change that has come over the thinking world. Superstition has been largely banished. Men walk in the clear light of knowledge, unafraid of darkness, for they know it is fleeting, and conscious of a dominating power over nature. Spontaneous generation, the flat earth, and the witch, have all been relegated to an ignorant past. And all this – the greatest change in human thinking, and the most complete power over natural forces – has come because men have given facts precedence over inferences. Truth as it may be determined by the senses of men has been given the right of way over “theories of men.” Out of the change has come a new day, the greatest day!

III. As I turned the pages of the books, the meaning of a fact, a truth, was repeatedly set forth. “Truth,” said Joseph Smith, “is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.” And knowledge, truthful knowledge, can be obtained only through the senses of man. That which we see or hear, smell or taste or feel – that becomes the safe foundation of knowledge and leads us to truth. A fact of experience becomes the unit of knowledge. Truth is built of such units. And the books, I was glad to note, made special and favorable mention of that sense of man, beyond the reach of eye or ear or nose or tongue, which brings us knowledge of the larger, unseen world. The eye, first used in the building of our modern knowledge, has been given undue prominence. The subtler senses are now entering upon the task of gathering facts for human progress.

IV. The books spoke sadly, but firmly, of the limitations of human senses. How poor is unaided vision or hearing! The stars were but bright spots in the heavens until the telescope and the spectroscope came into use. Then the stars became suns in space of complex composition and motion. And water was but water until the microscope enabled the eye of man to see the world of minute living things. One of the books said, “without instruments, man has only a peep-hole view of the universe.” In full accord with this principle, Joseph Smith, the prophet, was provided with Urim and Thummim, holy instruments, aids to his human powers, by which he might be able to translate the engravings on the plates.

V. With or without the use of instruments, the senses of man yield the facts of human experience, which alone can serve as the building blocks of all truthful knowledge. One fact, like the stone in David’s sling, has often overthrown a giant, man-made theory.

VI. But, said the books, and indeed they now spoke well, that restless instrument, the human mind, take the facts of experience, arranges them, classifies and reclassifies them, builds them into new structures – and makes inferences that are more or less completely supported by facts. Thus, the fact of the constancy of composition of any chemical compound led to the inference known as the atomic theory; the fact that an apple falls to the ground, became converted into the theory of gravitation, and the facts of the fossil’s record in the rocks have become the theory of evolution. Such inferences from facts are useful in the further building of science; they are often glorious evidences of the power of the human mind; but they are only inferences of varying degrees of probability of truth approaching only the validity of facts. They are modernized, and truly better, “theories of men,” but not on a par with the facts of experience.

VII. And now, as I read along, I discovered that many a writer of books in this enlightened day is a poor philosopher, who has not learned to distinguish between facts, the only reliable units of knowledge, and inferences, the guesses, more or less probable, as to the meaning of the facts. One writer builds a philosophy for universal acceptance upon the theory of the electron, another upon the theory of gravitation, and a third upon the theory of evolution. If opposition is voiced, the proponents of the theories rise up in mighty wrath, forgetting that they are but defending a human inference, not a fact of human observation. So, even in this enlightened age men have not wholly freed themselves from the heavy yoke of “theories of men.”

VIII. Here, perhaps, lies the chief danger besetting this otherwise clear-thinking age. Men become enamored of their own creations, their explanations of the universe. Much of the discord among men may be traced directly to an unintelligent allegiance to inferences; few men quarrel about facts. A truly enlightened person would tolerantly consider all inferences from knowledge, recognizing them, at the best, to be helpful conjectures concerning the meaning of the universe, none wholly representing the truth. The concern of humanity must be to discover facts of unquestioned validity.

IX. I pondered, in the sheltered alcove of the Library, upon these matters. I thought of the youths and maidens, who, not understanding the difference between a fact and an inference, wreck years of their youth in the attempt to reconcile religion and scientific theory. A religion founded in truth accepts all facts and rests itself upon established truth. A religion founded upon truth discriminates carefully between fact and inference. Theories of science can no more overthrow the facts of religion than the facts of science. Inferences are always subordinate to facts. For example, one cannot build a faith upon the theory of evolution, for this theory is of no higher order than any other inference, and is therefore in a state of constant change. A fact remains unchanged throughout all time; an inference changes as facts accumulate. A straight stick in a pool appears bent, an unchanging fact, all conditions remaining the same; the theory of light explaining the “bent” stick has already been changed several times, and is subject to more change. No scientific theory of consequence remains today as it was originally.

X. One man built his house on sand, and under the storms of life his house was destroyed. So with the man who builds his life philosophy upon the “theories of men.” Another built his house upon rock, and the house was unshaken by the storm. So with the man who rests his life philosophy upon facts, in spiritual as in temporal matters. He shall prevail throughout all ages.

It was a pleasant hour that afternoon in the Congressional Library. May we, who glory in truth and build upon it, never confuse simple truth with the “theories of men.”

IX. THE WAY TO TRUTH

The way to truth? O yes, there is such a royal road, and any man may find and follow it. True, it heads straight for the goal and therefore is not attractive to those who like to meander and loiter among pretty fields of pseudo-truth. But those who have trodden the royal way, and their names are legion, bear witness to the surpassing joy of the journey.

DESIRE.

The way to truth may be found by anyone who desires it. But, he must desire it with all his might, mind, and strength. A Sunday wish will not suffice. The desire must suffuse and penetrate every waking moment. One’s whole being must reach out for truth, a fragment of which must become more precious than the whole scintillating world of untruth. Life itself must seem a small price to pay for the possession of truth.

Such a desire leads one inevitably to the gateway of truth. The great ones of all ages, prophets, poets, philosophers, and scientists, who have moved the world forward, have been vibrating lovers of truth. They have not found this gem of gems accidentally, but it has been revealed to them as the result of their earnest struggle. They set out with the power of desire in their souls, and victory was assured. To such, truth cannot be denied. It comes to them with a “great wakening light,” as servant and friend. Modern science has revealed that wherever the searcher goes truth is found. The Prophet Alma has formulated the thought, “He granteth unto men according to their desire.”

Many a mighty but stubborn soul has haunted the moorlands of life because it refused to yield itself to the desire for truth rather than to its own wilfulness. Many a simple but fervent soul, asking for truth above all else, has won the kingship of happy understanding among the restless multitude. Love of truth cannot thrive with an undisciplined will. Therefore the will for truth leads man farther than the possession of powerful physical or intellectual strength. There is no real desire for truth unless the individual is ready to lay by, if needs be, his former conceptions, in favor of the greater truth that he has found. The unbeliever usually comforts himself with the assurance that his analytical powers will lead him to truth, and forgets that the first requisite is a consuming desire to know things as they really are.

PRAYER.

Truth is unlimited: that is the clarion cry of science and of religion. The search for truth is a process of discovering the unknown, of throwing light into dark places. The searcher interprets the language of life and reads the will of God. And he is able to do so because he is in tune or communion with the truth he seeks. He must believe that it is there; he must seek, as it were, to touch it to be led by it. Such attempts to be in harmony with truth is prayer.

Men who search out truth are prayerful. They stand with uncovered heads before the unknown. They know their own insignificance before the eternal fount of knowledge. Certainly, there are some truthseekers, usually busy in material fields, who do not speak to the Lord directly, but they also stand reverently before the power in all things, which is their conception of God. Prayer as commonly understood, or its equivalent, is a requisite for those who are to travel the way to truth. Manly men who really love truth, are proud to pray to God for help and guidance. They get down on their knees. Prayer and desire go hand in hand. Desire says, Let us go, and prayer answers, Here is the way. Desire is the determination to build the house; prayer is the planning and making ready for it. Desire is the gasoline in the engine, prayer the ignition that permits work to be done. On the way to truth, prayer must be as a constant jubilant cry of the traveler.

To win knowledge of the unseen, to obtain a testimony of truth, one must pray without ceasing. It must be the first and last act of the day. Then, we shall be in tune and harmony with the forces about us, and truth will wait upon us and we shall recognize it. The need of prayer grows with the increase of truth.

STUDY.

The third step towards the way to truth is to bend actively every power to the elucidation of truth. The scientist with strong desire for the discovery of truth, and a prayer in his heart that he may be attuned to it, and thereby be able to recognize it, sets out to learn all that is known about the subject, and then he experiments, records and analyses, until at last the new discovery comes into view. It is often strenuous labor. Amundsen who saw both Poles and traveled the northwest passage, had a burning desire for exploration, and placed himself in full harmony with the spirit of discovery; then he informed himself as few men have done about the history of exploration, ocean currents, magnetic disturbance, meteorology, navigation, shipbuilding, and numerous other things required in his coming labors. I twas upon such a preparation that he built his immortal career. Such earnest study is required of all who achieve truth.

The field of religion offers no exception. To understand religious truth it must be studied. The Gospel of Jesus Christ comprehends all other knowledge. It is the philosophy that explains the whole of man’s relationship to the universe. It invites the deepest study and the severest scrutiny. In religion as in science the more a subject is studied, the more perfect is our knowledge of it. Our certainty of the truth of a subject does not necessarily depend upon our extent of knowledge, but comprehensiveness of understanding unquestionably increases as knowledge grows.

Failure to become acquainted with a subject through careful study has led to many a disaster, especially in the spiritual field. Men who have spent years of study to perfect themselves in a science, and only weeks in the systematic consideration of religion, often set themselves up with splendid indifference to consistency as equally competent in both fields. Religion demands studious attention if it is to be understood. It is well to ask the blatant unbeliever something about the serious study he has given the subject.

It scarcely needs to be said that each person must find the way to truth for himself. Another man cannot desire for us or pray in our stead, or study in our place. That can be done neither in science nor religion. The help received from another is proportional to our own effort.

The recognition of this principle is found in the restored church of Christ, in which the priesthood is held by all worthy men, and all members participate in church activities. In the progress towards truth every traveler must walk upon his own feet. Study of the principles of truth is therefore required of all.

PRACTICE.

Truth is not fully established until it is put to the test of practice; that is, truth must be obeyed to be fully known. This is an elementary principle of scientific thought, but for some inexplicable reason, in the field of religion it has seemed less important.

Yet, use gives life to knowledge; it converts theory into certainty; it is the convincing seal of testimony. Practice or obedience is the final step towards the way to truth.

This is the most difficult requirement made of the truth-seeker. After he has become intellectually convinced of the truth of a principle, he must practice it to establish its final certainty. A smoker who becomes convinced of the divine truth of the Word of Wisdom must forego the use of tobacco; or if convinced of the correctness of the principle of tithing, he must divide with the Lord; that means a battle with carnal desires. But a fulness of knowledge concerning the principles of truth comes only from obedience to them.

The strength of desire and the sincerity of prayer for truth are here given the acid test. Learning the law may be a pleasant pastime, but obedience to law requires yielding of the will, which demands the assistance of flaming desire and intense prayer When the man of knowledge stops short of practice, his desire for truth is weak. Many of the critics and fault-finders of systems of truth are in just such a condition. They know or fear that a principle is true, but have not the courage to try it out. Thousands of thinking people know that “Mormonism” is true, but they dare not practice its tenets and yield obedience to its requirements. Such people have no right to set themselves up as guides to others; they wold better devote themselves to the subjection of their wills to the call of truth. And, by a curious token, study and practice nourish desire and give direction to prayer, and thus strengthen the will.

A TESTIMONY.

The way to truth? Yes, it may be found easily, but only by paying the eternal price of truth. The way is through the higher logic, the convincing teaching of the spirit of truth by the operations of the mind and the eager outreaching of the spirit to God.

Whoever would find truth must:

(1) Desire truth,
(2) Pray for it,
(3) Study, and
(4) Practice it.

Those who do so will find truth, for it cannot be denied them. They will receive the glorious and priceless possession called a testimony or complete assurance of truth, which becomes the great gift of God to its possessor.

Is truth worth the effort necessary to secure it?

Truth is the only enduring possession of man; the only power that lifts man into permanent joy. It is the final justification of life. Human days are valueless if truth is not worth every sacrifice of life. Those who have lived most have lived by truth. So speaks the voice of human experience.