The unseen universe : $b or, physical speculations on a future stateStewart, Balfour
Religion
The unseen universe : $b or, physical speculations on a future state
Stewart, Balfour
Immortality; Religion and science
50. In the preceding chapter we have given a very brief epitome of
the various beliefs regarding immortality and the invisible world
held by the civilised nations of the earth, from the earliest dawn
of history to the present day. Our object has been not so much to
enter even into general details as to present boldly those particular
features of each system of belief which are most closely concerned
with the subject of our work. Thus our account of each separate
system is intentionally incomplete, even as a simple sketch. It is
now time to say something about the object of this book, as well as
to define the position from which we mean to start in pursuance of
that object. We shall therefore commence by dividing those who at all
concern themselves about our theme into three great classes.
First, we have those who are so absolutely certain of the truth of
their views of religion, and of the immortality which they believe
it teaches, that they are not qualified to entertain or even to
perceive any scientific objection. They acknowledge that certain
deductions made by men of science appear to contradict or to be
incompatible with certain truths of their religion. But these they
regard as premature conclusions, averring that when the laws of
nature have been more deeply investigated, there will be found a
perfect concord between science and revelation. Certain scientific
truths they readily assent to, and it is only the altogether human
superstructure of speculation built upon these that they profess
to question. ‘You have built,’ they say, ‘upon the rock of truth a
structure of wood, hay, stubble, and you would persuade us that it is
the very temple of God. We will not enter it, but will patiently wait
in the expectation of seeing it speedily consumed with fire.’
Now, whatever be the merits or demerits of such men, it is not for
them we write. Their merit may consist in having made a perfectly
true charge against certain classes of scientific men—their demerit
probably in having themselves treated religion precisely as they
accuse their adversaries of having treated scientific truth. We
must let them alone—they will not be influenced by anything that we
can say. We may perhaps be praised by them in a certain measure if
it be thought that we have helped to overthrow the superstructure
built by their adversaries; we shall certainly be condemned by them
if it be thought that we have helped to weaken any portion of the
superstructure which they themselves have reared.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account