History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science | Page 2

unchangeable, stationary; Science is in its nature progressive; and
eventually a divergence between them, impossible to conceal, must
take place. It then becomes the duty of those whose lives have made
them familiar with both modes of thought, to present modestly, but
firmly, their views; to compare the antagonistic pretensions calmly,
impartially, philosophically. History shows that, if this be not done,
social misfortunes, disastrous and enduring, will ensue. When the old
mythological religion of Europe broke down under the weight of its
own inconsistencies, neither the Roman emperors nor the philosophers
of those times did any thing adequate for the guidance of public
opinion. They left religious affairs to take their chance, and accordingly
those affairs fell into the hands of ignorant and infuriated ecclesiastics,
parasites, eunuchs, and slaves.
The intellectual night which settled on Europe, in consequence of that
great neglect of duty, is passing away; we live in the daybreak of better
things. Society is anxiously expecting light, to see in what direction it is
drifting. It plainly discerns that the track along which the voyage of
civilization has thus far been made, has been left; and that a new
departure, on all unknown sea, has been taken.
Though deeply impressed with such thoughts, I should not have
presumed to write this book, or to intrude on the public the ideas it
presents, had I not made the facts with which it deals a subject of long
and earnest meditation. And I have gathered a strong incentive to
undertake this duty from the circumstance that a "History of the
Intellectual Development of Europe," published by me several years
ago, which has passed through many editions in America, and has been
reprinted in numerous European languages, English, French, German,
Russian, Polish, Servian, etc., is everywhere received with favor.
In collecting and arranging the materials for the volumes I published
under the title of "A History of the American Civil War," a work of
very great labor, I had become accustomed to the comparison of
conflicting statements, the adjustment of conflicting claims. The
approval with which that book has been received by the American
public, a critical judge of the events considered, has inspired me with

additional confidence. I had also devoted much attention to the
experimental investigation of natural phenomena, and had published
many well-known memoirs on such subjects. And perhaps no one can
give himself to these pursuits, and spend a large part of his life in the
public teaching of science, without partaking of that love of
impartiality and truth which Philosophy incites. She inspires us with a
desire to dedicate our days to the good of our race, so that in the fading
light of life's evening we may not, on looking back, be forced to
acknowledge how unsubstantial and useless are the objects that we
have pursued.
Though I have spared no pains in the composition of this book, I am
very sensible how unequal it is to the subject, to do justice to which a
knowledge of science, history, theology, politics, is required; every
page should be alive with intelligence and glistening with facts. But
then I have remembered that this is only as it were the preface, or
forerunner, of a body of literature, which the events and wants of our
times will call forth. We have come to the brink of a great intellectual
change. Much of the frivolous reading of the present will be supplanted
by a thoughtful and austere literature, vivified by endangered interests,
and made fervid by ecclesiastical passion.
What I have sought to do is, to present a clear and impartial statement
of the views and acts of the two contending parties. In one sense I have
tried to identify myself with each, so as to comprehend thoroughly their
motives; but in another and higher sense I have endeavored to stand
aloof, and relate with impartiality their actions.
I therefore trust that those, who may be disposed to criticise this book,
will bear in mind that its object is not to advocate the views and
pretensions of either party, but to explain clearly, and without shrinking
those of both. In the management of each chapter I have usually set
forth the orthodox view first, and then followed it with that of its
opponents.
In thus treating the subject it has not been necessary to pay much regard
to more moderate or intermediate opinions, for, though they may be
intrinsically of great value, in conflicts of this kind it is not with the
moderates but with the extremists that the impartial reader is mainly
concerned. Their movements determine the issue.
For this reason I have had little to say respecting the two great

Christian confessions, the Protestant and Greek Churches. As to the
latter, it has never, since the restoration of