_The Threshold of Religion_ (1914), p. 48. Footnote 73: _Zentralblatt für Psychoanalyse_ (1911), p. 272. Footnote 74: _Golden Bough_, “Balder the Beautiful,” vol. II, pp. 304-05. Footnote 75: Farnell even asserts (in his _Greek Hero Cults_) that “it is impossible to quote a single example of any one of the higher world-religions working in harmony with the development of physical science.” He finds a “special and unique” exception in the cult of Asclepios at Cos and Epidauros and Pergamon, where, after the fourth century B.C., were physicians, practising a rational medical science, who were also official priests of the Asclepios temples. Footnote 76: Sir Oliver Lodge, _Reason and Belief_, p. 19. Footnote 77: It is scarcely necessary to point out that a differentiation of function has to be made sooner or later, and sometimes it is made soon. This was so among the Todas of India. “Certain Todas,” says Dr. Rivers (_The Todas_, 1906, p. 249), “have the power of divination, others are sorcerers, and others again have the power of curing diseases by means of spells and rites, while all three functions are quite separate from those of the priest or sharman. The Todas have advanced some way towards civilisation of function in this respect, and have as separate members of the community their prophets, their magicians, and their medicine-men in addition to their priests.” Footnote 78: Joël, _Ursprung der Naturphilosophie aus dem Geiste der Romantik_ (1903); _Nietzsche und die Romantik_ (1905). But I am here quoting from Professor Joël’s account of his own philosophical development in _Die Deutsche Philosophie der Gegenwart_, vol. I (1921). Footnote 79: In connection with this scheme, it may be interesting to note, I prepared, in 1879, a _questionnaire_ on “conversion,” on the lines of the investigations which some years later began to be so fruitfully carried out by the psychologists of religion in America. Footnote 80: It must be remembered that for science the mechanistic assumption always remains; it is, as Vaihinger would say, a necessary fiction. To abandon it is to abandon science. Driesch, the most prominent vitalist of our time, has realised this, and in his account of his own mental development (_Die Deutsche Philosophie der Gegenwart_, vol. I, 1921) he shows how, beginning as a pupil of Haeckel and working at zoölogy for many years, after adopting the theory of vitalism he abandoned all zoölogical work and became a professor of philosophy. When the religious spectator, or the æsthetic spectator (as is well illustrated in the French review _L’Esprit Nouveau_), sees the “machinery” as something else than machinery he is legitimately going outside the sphere of science, but he is not thereby destroying the basic assumption of science. Footnote 81: