To a mind thus essentially religious the announcements of science often come as a shock. They seem to run counter to our deepest convictions. It seems impossible to us that both can be true. Sometimes the more we debate the questions the more contradictory they seem to become. Every good mind needs unity in itself. No clear thinker can be quite content when two distinct departments of thought are at sharp variance in his mind. He may pursue one of two courses. He may hold to one view with conviction and earnestness and look upon the other as essentially false. To many religious people all science that runs counter to their convictions is necessarily false. They label it pseudo-science and pass it by. If the word pseudo-science is unknown to them, they stigmatize it as rationalistic, or still worse as materialistic and let it go at that. The other course is to have faith both in religion and in science. Such a fair-minded man must ask himself, what is the truth in the matter? If the scientific fact is true it is to be believed. It may run counter to what we have believed before. It may seem at first entirely incredible. But when once he becomes convinced of its truth the clear thinker must not only accept it, but must accept all legitimate deductions from it. If it seems true to us we must believe it. Absolute demonstrable truth, except in the simplest of matters is almost unattainable. The best we can ordinarily get is a close approach to certainty, and with this we must be content. In many matters, indeed in most matters, we must trust the judgment of others who are better trained in a particular line of thought. As to the truth of geology we are certainly wise to accept for the present the facts and principles commonly accepted by competent geologists. In biology, we should respect the concurrent opinion of important biologists. We must not assume that a few biologists who think as we do are right against the biological world, or that a few geologists who think as we do are right against the geological world. For theology, we had better go to the educated theologian. But when it comes to reconciling two of these and to catching the inherent correspondence between them, it is often likely that each of these groups of men is unable to see clearly the view-point of the other. Here lies our freedom. Here we must either think for ourselves or think with those wiser than ourselves whose opinions seem to us to ring true and to focus for us our wavering and uncertain thought.