The Freedom of Science Part 6

But revelation was to be an heritage of mankind, it was to be transmitted and laid unadulterated before all generations. For this reason it could not be left unprotected to the vicissitudes of time, or the arbitrary interpretation of the individual. It would have utterly failed in its purpose of transmitting sure knowledge of certain truth,-the history of Protestantism proves this,-had it been given merely with the injunction: Receive what I have committed to your keeping, and do with it what you please. No, it had to be made secure against subjective, arbitrary choice.

To this end Christ established an international organization, the _Church_, and committed to it His Gospel as a means of grace, together with the right and sacred duty to teach it to all men in His Name, to keep inviolate the heirloom of revelation, defending it against all error.

"Going, therefore, teach ye all nations" (Matt. xxviii. 19), was His command. "Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi. 15). "He that heareth you, heareth Me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me" (Luke x. 16).

"Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world"

(Matt. xxviii. 20). He gave His divine aid to the Church, in order that she might _infallibly_ keep His doctrine to the very end of time.

Thus the divine revelation and the Church approach all men with the duty to believe: "he that believeth shall be saved," G.o.d gravely commands; "and if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican" (Matt. xviii. 17). They lay their teachings before the human intellect, bidding it retain them as indubitable truth, upon their infallible testimony, yet only after convincing itself that G.o.d has really spoken, and that this Church is the true one, which cannot err. And only after having convinced itself of the credibility of the proposed teaching is it obliged to believe. Hence, according to the Christian mind, faith is the _reasonable conviction of the truth of what is proposed for belief, by reason of an acknowledged infallible testimony_.

The Catholic dogma we find explained in the definition of the Vatican Council, which had to expose so many errors that are liable in our days to confuse the faithful in their notions of faith and Church. "This faith," says the Vatican Council (Sess.

III, chap. 3), "which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church teaches to be a supernatural virtue, by which, through the inspiration and co-operation of the grace of G.o.d, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not on account of the intrinsic truth of it, perceived by the natural light of reason, but on the authority of G.o.d who gives the revelation, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.... Nevertheless, in order that the service of our belief might be in accord with reason ('a reasonable service') G.o.d willed to unite to the internal helps of the Holy Ghost external proofs of His revelation, to wit, external works divine, especially miracles and prophecies, which, clearly demonstrating G.o.d's omnipotence and infinite knowledge, are most certain signs of divine revelation and are suited to the intelligence of all." The Council adds expressly the canon: "If any one say that divine revelation cannot be made credible by exterior signs, and that men ought therefore to be moved to belief solely by their interior experience or individual inspiration, let him be anathema." We have here stated the Catholic dogma as unanimously taught by all Christian centuries, by all Fathers and theologians.

Hence, the act of faith by which I believe that the Son of G.o.d became man, that I shall rise from the dead, is first of all a _judgment of the reason_, not an act of the will, or a feeling of the heart. It is, moreover, a _certain_ rational judgment upon weighty reasons, not, indeed, such which I draw from intellectual knowledge, but those which rest upon the infallible testimony of G.o.d. The act of faith agrees therefore with a.s.sent to historic truth in that it is of the same kind of knowledge, but upon the authority of infallible testimony. Just as I believe that Alexander once marched victoriously through Asia, because there is sure testimony to that effect, so I believe that I shall rise from the dead, because G.o.d has revealed it. The difference being that in the former case we have only human testimony, whereas in the latter G.o.d Himself speaks.

Thus, according to Catholic teaching, faith and knowledge may be distinct from each other, but in a sense quite different from that of the representatives of modern, sentimental faith. The latter understand knowledge, in this connection, to be any judgment of the reason based upon evidence, and they deny that faith is such; but to a Catholic, faith, too, is a _judgment of the reason_, and in this sense true knowledge; only it is not knowledge in the more common sense of a cognition derived from one's own mental activity _without_ the external means of authority.

As we have heard from the Vatican Council, it is the recognized fact of divine revelation which bestows upon the matter of faith its certainty in reason. Hence the knowledge of this fact must precede faith itself. But the knowledge must be certain, not merely a belief, for it is the very presupposition of belief, but a knowledge, derived from the intellect, which may at any time be traced back to scientific proofs if there is the requisite philosophical training. So long as man is not certain that G.o.d has spoken, he cannot have faith according to the Catholic view. One of the sentences condemned by _Innocent XI._, to say nothing of other ecclesiastical testimonies, is this: "The a.s.sent of supernatural faith, useful for salvation, can exist with merely probable information of the fact of revelation, even with the fear that G.o.d has not spoken." And very recently there has been condemned also the proposition: "The a.s.sent of faith ultimately rests upon a sum of probabilities" (Decretum Lamentabile, July 3, 1907. Sent. 25).

It cannot be our task here to show at length how the Christian arrives at this certain knowledge. Our present purpose is only to state the Catholic concept of faith. We have already heard the Vatican Council refer to miracles and prophecies. To most of the faithful the chief fact that offers them this security is the wonderful phenomenon of the _Catholic Church_ itself, which proposes to them the doctrines of faith as divine revelation.

Thus again the Vatican Council defines clearly: "To enable us to do our duty in embracing the true faith and remaining in it steadfastly, G.o.d has through His incarnate Son established the Church and set plain marks upon His inst.i.tution, in order that it may be recognized by all as the guardian and interpreter of revelation. For only the Catholic Church possesses all those arrangements, so various and wonderful, made by G.o.d in order to demonstrate publicly the credibility of Christianity. Indeed the Church of itself, because of its wonderful propagation, its pre-eminent sanct.i.ty and inexhaustible fecundity in everything good, its Catholic unity and invincible duration, is a grand permanent proof of its credibility and irrefutable testimony in behalf of its divine mission. Thus, like a 'standard unto the nations,' it invites those to come to it who have not yet believed, and a.s.sures its children that the faith they profess rests upon a most firm foundation."

The Catholic looks with pride upon his Church: she has stood all the trials of history. He sees her endure, though within hara.s.sed by heresies and endangered by various unworthiness and incapacity of her priests, and attacked incessantly from without by irreconcilable enemies, yet prevailing victoriously through the centuries, blessing, converting nations and beloved by them; while by her side worldly kingdoms, supported by armies and weapons, go down into the grave of human instability. The most wonderful fact in the world's history, contrary to all laws of natural, historical events,-here a higher hand is plainly thrust into human history; it is the fulfilment of the divine promise: "I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." "The gates of h.e.l.l shall not prevail against it." He sees the Saints, who have lived in this Church and have become saints through her, those superhuman heroes of virtue, who far surpa.s.s the laws of human capacity.

In the most widely different states of life in the Church he sees virtue grow in the degree in which one submits to her guidance. He witnesses the remarkable spectacle, that everything n.o.ble and good is attracted by the Church, and their contrary repelled. He sees the miracles which never cease in her midst. Finally he beholds her admirable unity and vigorous faith; she alone holding firm to her teaching, not compromising with any error; she alone holding fearlessly aloft the principle of divine authority, and thus becoming a beacon to many who are seeking a safe shelter from spiritual ruin. In addition we finally have that harmony and grandeur of the truths of faith, and-perhaps not in the last place-that calm and peace of mind, produced in the faithful soul by a life led according to this faith, by prayer and the reception of the Sacraments. This is a clear proof that where the Spirit of G.o.d breathes there cannot be the seat of untruth.

These are sufficient proofs to produce even in the uneducated, and in children, true and reasonable certainty, provided they have had sufficient instruction in religion. It must, however, be emphasized that this conviction produced by faith need _not first be gained by scientific investigation_ of the motives of faith, or by minute or extensive theological studies. A wrong notion of human knowledge frequently leads to the opinion that there is no true certainty at all unless it is the result of scientific study-a presumption on which is based the claim of freedom of science to disregard any conviction, be it ever so sacred, and the claim that it is reserved to science alone to attain the sure possession of the truth. Later on we shall dwell more at length upon this important point. Let it suffice here to remark that the intellect can attain real certainty even without scientific research; most of our convictions, which we all hold unhesitatingly as true, are of this kind. They const.i.tute a belief that is based upon the real knowledge of the reason, which knowledge is not, however, so clear and distinct that it could be demonstrated easily in scientific form.

The certainty of faith, therefore, is based upon the knowledge that G.o.d Himself vouches for the truth of the teachings of faith. This relieves the faithful from the necessity of obtaining by his own reflection an insight into the intrinsic reasons of the why and the wherefore of the proposed truth, and to examine in each instance the correctness of the thing. He knows that G.o.d has revealed it, that His infallible Church vouches for it; hence it is credible and true; that suffices for him, just as trustworthy evidence suffices for the historian concerning facts which he himself has not observed.

Let no one say that faith is a _blind belief_ and blind obedience, and that dogmatic Christianity, or, to use another phrase, "the religion of the law, demands first of all obedience: it is true it would like, besides that, an interior a.s.sent for its thoughts and commandments, but where this is lacking the law itself furnishes the ways and means to compensate the lack of this internal a.s.sent, if only obedience is there" (_A. Harnack_, Religioeser Glaube u. freie Forschung. Neue Freie Presse, June 7, 1908).

Nor let any one say that free research has "at least this advantage over dogma, that its claims can be proved, which is not true of the other's claims" (_J. H. van't Hoff_, ibid., Dec. 29, 1907). These are misrepresentations.

There is no obedience to faith which is not _internal a.s.sent and conviction_, and there is no clinging to dogmas which is not based on motives of faith, or which could not at any time be subjected to scientific investigation. If the term "blindness of belief" were intended to express only that the believer holds the revealed doctrine to be true, not because he has discovered its truth by his own reasoning, but on the authority of G.o.d, then we might suffer the misleading word. But it is utterly false in the sense that the believer has no conviction at all.

Even though others have it not, the faithful Catholic, the believing Christian, has it, and it is personal conviction. He has convinced himself that G.o.d has spoken, and of the credibility and hence the truth of the revealed doctrine, by his own reason, and this is why he a.s.sents.

Still greater is the misrepresentation of the real motive of faith, if it is held to be the opinion of the Pope or of Roman Prelates. _Wundt_ thus misstates the Catholic position: "Not every one can acquire knowledge. But any one can believe. The enlightened leaders of the Church, and the Church herself first of all, have knowledge, and by dint of authority determine what is to be believed" (Ethik, 3d ed., 1903, I, p. 342). According to the popular scientific propaganda of unbelief, we have to deal in the Church merely with "ignorant monks, Asiatic patriarchs, and similar dignitaries, some very superst.i.tious, who, for instance, a.s.sembled in the third century and decided _by vote_ that the Gospel is the word of G.o.d; we have to deal with men who have proved their incapacity and incompetence" (_Masaryk_, Im Kampfe um die Religion, 1904, pp. 22-23).

Any one who shares such ideas about the supernaturalness of the Catholic Church has, of course, forfeited his claim to understand Catholic life and faith. The Catholic believes in his Church, not on any account of Asiatic patriarchs and superst.i.tious dignitaries, but because she is led by the Holy Ghost, and the Pope must believe the same as the humblest of the faithful: neither the Pope himself relies upon his own judgment, nor does the Catholic who trusts in the word of the Pope.

We add a few remarks which may further ill.u.s.trate the action of faith.

The knowledge of the fact of revelation, hence of the credibility of the truths revealed, is certain, as shown above. Nevertheless, _it does not compel_ reason to a.s.sent. Under ordinary circ.u.mstances it would be impossible to think of one's own existence, of the elementary laws of mathematics, without being constrained by the evidence to give direct internal a.s.sent. But insight into the truth of a thing is not always of this high degree of clearness. In such cases it is an empirical law of the mind that reason discerns of itself the _logical_ necessity, that is, if it desires to proceed according to the merits of the case, without, however, acting under _physical_ constraint. There remains then the determination, the command of the will. This is generally true of many judgments about natural things, but especially true of belief. The knowledge of the fact of revelation is true and certain, though it might be still clearer. The truths offered by divine revelation are too deep for us to comprehend them fully; they imply questions and difficulties for us to ponder. We feel the physical possibility of pondering these difficulties, although we see at the same time that the difficulty is exploded by the certainty of the fact of revelation; but we remain _free_ in giving our a.s.sent.

Herein lies the possibility of _meritorious_ faith, the possibility of the creature rendering to G.o.d the free tribute of his free submission. At the same time it opens the possibility of turning voluntarily to doubts, and of submitting to them more and more, till the mind becomes clouded and ensnared by error. Thus, since faith depends on free will, the will is strictly commanded to impel the intellect to a.s.sent and cling to faith and to put aside doubts. G.o.d has revealed the truths of faith that they may be firmly believed.

Hence faith is a product of the will also, and may become part and parcel of the sentimental life. Firmly believed, revealed truths engender in man love and grat.i.tude, fear and hope. And being beautiful and comforting, they are embraced fervently by the heart, and become objects of desire, sources of comfort and happiness. Nevertheless they are in themselves, and remain, rational judgments, based upon insight and knowledge; just as the fond recollections of home are and remain acts of cognition, though our affections are twined round those reminiscences like wreaths of evergreen.

What has just been said ill.u.s.trates also another point,-the _relation of faith to grace_. The Vatican Council says: "Faith is a supernatural virtue by which, through the inspiration and co-operation of the grace of G.o.d, we believe to be true what He has revealed." Faith is called a gift of G.o.d, a work of grace. But this must not mislead us to think that it is a mystical process, taking place in the human mind, indeed, but not moving along the natural course of human cognition, but along quite a different course: perhaps an immediate mystical grasp of the revealed truth, while natural intelligence stands aside, not understanding it.

This would be returning to our starting point,-making faith anything but a judgment of the reason. It is a common doctrine of theology that the process of faith differs nothing in kind from the natural process of human intellect in its apprehension of the truth. It is belief on grounds recognized as sufficient motives for a.s.sent.

What then does grace do? Two things. First, it elevates the act of the soul in the process of believing to a higher sphere. Just as sanctifying grace elevates the soul itself to a supernatural sphere, permitting it to partake of the nature of G.o.d, so does the grace of faith raise the acts of the soul to the supernatural order. The _kind_ of cognition, however, remains the same: just as a ring does not alter its form by being golden instead of silver.

In the second place, grace is _a.s.sistance_: it enlightens the intellect that it may be able to see more clearly, not giving to motives of faith an importance which they have not of themselves, but helping the intellect to see them as they are; removing the troubles and dangers of doubt which beset the mind, so that it may retain that calmness which generally accompanies the possession of the truth. The pledge of this a.s.sistance is given the Christian at baptism and with each increase of sanctifying grace. But the actual effect of grace depends on many conditions. If one omits prayer and neglects religious duties, deafens one's ear to the word of G.o.d, incurs knowingly unnecessary dangers to faith, forsakes the path of virtue, then grace may withdraw to a considerable extent; doubts become stronger, intellectual darkness and confusion increase, and man goes on apace towards infidelity.

This is the Catholic doctrine concerning faith.

Faith and Reason.

But to return to our question: In what relation do faith and the duty to believe stand to freedom of research? We said that freedom of research consists in exemption from all unjust external restraint, that is, from those external hindrances to the action of the human intellect which prevent it from attaining its natural end. Now what is this natural end?

The answer will make clear what restraint and laws must be respected by the human mind, and which may be rightly rejected.

On the coat-of-arms of Harvard University is written the beautiful word "Truth." Upon the human mind, too, is inscribed the word _Veritati_-_for the truth_. The human mind exists for the sake of truth; for the truth it reasons and searches; it is its natural object, as sound is the object of the human ear, and light and colour the object of the eye. And truth attracts the mind strongly. The child wants the truth, and tries to get it by its many questions; the historian wants the truth, and tries to get it by his incessant searching and collecting. "I can hardly resist my craving," _William von Humboldt_ confesses, "to see and know and examine as much as possible: after all, man seems to be here only for the purpose of appropriating to himself, making his own property, the property of his intellect, all that surrounds him-and life is short. When I depart this life I should like to leave behind me as little as possible unexperienced by me" (apud _O. Willmann_, Didaktik als Bildungslehre, 3d ed., II, 1903, p. 7). The great physicist, _W. Thomson_, a few years ago closed a life of eighty-three years-he died in December, 1907-devoted to the last to unabated search for the truth. It is true not all are called to labour in this field like _W. Thomson_. But every one who has capability may and should help to promote the n.o.ble work. Only they are excluded who do not want to look for the truth, or who are even ready, for external considerations, to pa.s.s off falsehood for the truth, unproved for established results. "I know of nothing," says the ancient sage, _Plato_, "that is more worthy of the human mind than truth" (Rep. VI, p. 483 c.).

And so the poet _Pindar_ sings: "Queen Truth, the mother of sublime Virtue."

If this is the aim of the human mind and its science, there is but one freedom of research, the _freedom for the truth_, the right not to be hampered in searching for the truth, not to be forced to hold as true what has not been previously vouched for to the intellect as true; in a word, the freedom to wear but one chain, the golden chain of the truth. Hence, if the scientist should be compelled by party interest, or public opinion, to pursue a course in science which he cannot acknowledge as the right one; if the younger scientist should feel constrained to conform the results of his research to the pleasure of his older colleagues or of men of name, against his own better judgment, then he would be deprived of his rightful freedom of searching for the truth, and of deciding for himself when he has found it. But there is one sort of freedom the scientist should never claim-_freedom against the truth_, freedom to ignore the truth, to emanc.i.p.ate himself from the truth. He is bound to accept every truth, sufficiently proved, even religious dogmas, miracles too, provided they are authenticated. Not freedom, but truth, is the purpose of research: emanc.i.p.ation from the truth is degeneration of the intellect, destruction of science.

What, then, does the duty to believe require of the faithful Christian? He is required, first of all, to a.s.sure himself of the certain credibility of those truths which he is required to believe, and here authentic proofs are offered him. On his perception of the credibility of these truths, he ought to a.s.sent to and accept G.o.d's testimony. Hence there should be no coercion to believe without interior conviction, no obstacle put in the way of recognizing the truth. _Where, then, is here any opposition to the lawful freedom of research_, to the right of unimpeded search for the truth? How is reason hindered in its search for the truth when truth is offered it by an infallible authority? We have here no opposition to the laws of reason, but due honour to its sacred rights; no bondage, but elevation and enrichment, completion and crowning of its thought, for the highest truth has been communicated to the reason that it may be of one mind with that Infinite Wisdom which has shaped reason for the truth, and from which it obtains its light as the planet from the sun around which it revolves.

Therefore, it cannot be said that "the Catholic resolves to believe as true what the Church teaches in the Apostles' Creed, but were he offered anything else as Church doctrine he would accept it as well. Hence these doctrines do not express his own personal opinions, they are something extraneous to him." (_W. Herrmann_, Roemische u. evangelische Sittlichkeit, 3d ed., 1903, p. 3). No, what the Catholic, what any true Christian, believes by faith, that is his innermost conviction, as it is the firm conviction of the historian that what he has drawn from reliable sources is true.-But what if the contrary were offered him? Well, this a.s.sumption is absurd; and why? Because G.o.d and His Church are infallible, and an infallible authority cannot speak the truth and its contrary at the same time. Much less than a reliable historical witness can testify to the truth and its contrary at the same time.

This same conviction gives to the faithful Christian the firm a.s.surance that no certain result of human research will ever come in conflict with his faith, just as the mathematician does not fear that his principle will ever be contradicted by any further work. Truth can never contradict truth. "Thus we believe and thus we teach and herein lies our salvation."

It is the very old conviction of the faithful Christian "that philosophy, that is, the study of wisdom, and religion are not different things." _Non aliam esse philosophiam, i.e., sapientiae studium et aliam religionem_ (_Augustinus_, De Vera Religione, 5). It is precisely this that enables the believing scientist to devote himself with great freedom and impartiality to research in every field, and to acknowledge any certified result without fear of ever having to stop before a definite conclusion.

Such is the _peace between faith and science_ according to Christian principles. They are not torn apart, but join hands peacefully, like truth with truth, like two certain convictions, only gained in different ways.

Similar is the peace and harmony between the results of various sciences, as physics and astronomy, geology and biology, which results, though arrived at by different methods, are still not opposed to each other, because they are both true.

The authority of faith, however, must be _infallible_; the authority of a scientist, a school or the state, can never approach us with an absolute obligation to believe it, because it cannot vouch for the truth. To the Catholic his Church proves itself infallible; hence everything is here logically consequent. Protestant Church authorities have not infallibility, nor do they claim it. Hence their precepts are seen more and more opposed. Hence to the Protestant the firm attachment of the Catholic to his Church must ever remain unintelligible, and it is regrettable that Catholics take instruction from Protestants about their relation to their Church.(2)

We must go a step further. If there is a divine revelation or an infallible Church-we speak only hypothetically-then no man and _no scientific research can claim the right_ to contradict this revelation and Church. Scientific research is not the hypostatized activity of a superhuman genius, of a G.o.d-like intelligence. No, it is the activity of a human intellect, and the latter is subject to G.o.d and truth everywhere.

There can be no freedom to oppose the truth; no privilege not to be bound to the truth but rather to have the right to construct one's views autonomously.

But here lies the deeper reason why to-day thousands to whom _Kant's_ _autonomism in thought_ has become the nerve of their intellectual life, will have nothing to do with guidance by revelation and Church. They can no longer understand that their reason should accept the truth from an external authority, not, indeed, because they would not find the truth, but because they would lose their independence.

It was _Sabatier_ who maintained that "an external authority, no matter how great one may think it to be, does not suffice to arouse in us any sense of obligation." And _Th. Lipps_ says on this further: "If obedience is taken in its narrower sense, that is, of determination by the will of another, then no obedience is moral." "In brief, obedience is immoral-not as a fact but as a feeling, betokening an unfree, slavish mind" (Die ethiseben Grundfragen, 2d ed., 1905, p. 119). And _W. Herrmann_ a.s.sures us.

"We would deem it a sin if we dared treat a proposition as true of which the ideas are not our own. If we should find such a proposition in the Bible, then we may perhaps resolve to wait and see whether its truth cannot be brought home to us after we have obtained a clearer and stronger insight of ourselves. But from the resolution to take that proposition as true without more ado, we could not promise ourselves anything beneficial."

It is for the sovereign subject himself to decide whether the ideas offered are compatible with the rest of his notions. A truth offered from without is acceptable to the subject only when, and because, he can produce of himself at the same time what is offered; but he cannot accept the obligation of _submitting_ to that truth in obedience to faith. "There is no infallible teaching authority on earth, nor can there be any.

Philosophy and science would have to contradict themselves to acknowledge it," says another champion of _Kant's_ freedom (_Paulsen_, Philosophia militans, 2d ed., p. 52). Hence the reason why there cannot be any infallible authority is, not because it does not offer the truth, but because the human intellect must not be chained down.

Now, this is no longer true freedom, but rebellion against the sacred right that truth has over the intellect. It is rebellion against the supreme authority of G.o.d, who can oblige man to embrace His revelation with that reason which He Himself has bestowed upon man. It is a misconception of the human mind, for it is by no means the source of truth and absolute knowledge, but weak and in need of supplement. Many truths it cannot by itself find at all, while in the quest for others it needs safe guidance lest it lose its way. If it refuses to be supplemented and guided from above, it demands the freedom of the weak vine allowed to break loose from the needed support of the tree, the freedom of the planet allowed to deviate from its...o...b..t to be hopelessly wrecked in the universe. The barrenness and disintegration in the ideal life of our own unchristian age, are clear testimony that freedom is not only lawlessness but a sin against one's own nature.