Chapter V: The Witnesses of the Incompatibility Of Science And Faith

The Objection.

We shall not go wrong in presuming that the reader, who has patiently followed our deductions, has had for some time in his mind the question: How about the representatives of scientific research themselves? Do not a large majority of them, perhaps virtually all, stand alien and repellant to Christian faith and its fundamental truths? We do not refer to our modern philosophers, for of them it might be said that their researches yield questionable speculations of individualistic stamp, rather than exact results. But there are the representatives of the more exact sciences, especially of the most exact of all, natural science. They may be considered the legitimate representatives of modern science, since their results are the most accurate, their methods the most strictly scientific; and are they not, every one of them, opposed to Christian faith, especially to its fundamental dogma? Is not _Haeckel_ right when he states in the final summary of his “Welträtsel,” in which he so strongly insists on the incompatibility of religion and natural science: “I am supported by the accord of nearly all modern naturalists who have the courage to express their convictions”? Is it not true that _A. von Humboldt_ is considered the prince of German naturalists? and yet in his voluminous “_Kosmos_” he not once mentions the name of God? Have not, with few exceptions, German naturalists, under _Humboldt’s_ influence, turned against Christianity? (_W. Menzel_, Die letzten hundertzwanzig Jahre der Weltgeschichte, VI, 1860, p. 70; cfr. _Pohle_, P. Angelo Secchi, 1904, p. 6). Here indeed the antagonism between true scientific spirit and the faith seems to take shape in tangible reality, and to invalidate every argument to the contrary.

Thus runs the speech that is ever recurring in the literature of the day, in newspapers and magazines no less than in books. And this speech makes an impression on its hearers. Indeed, why should it not? After describing how these heroes of science in recent times marched on triumphantly from victory to victory, how they renewed the face of the earth, and became the pioneers of human progress, how can they fail to make a deep impression if in the same breath they state that these discoverers of truth have, almost to a man, broken with the ancient teachings of the Christian religion?

Without doubt the suggestive effect of such speculation must be very considerable with those who lack sufficient historical knowledge. The case is different with those better acquainted with the history of the natural sciences. They know that it is not true to state that the leading natural scientists, for the most part, or even unanimously, have rejected and denied Christian religion, that it is a _lie_ and a falsification of history.

Let us illustrate it briefly. We do not, of course, mean to say, that _if_ it were true that all the leading naturalists were infidels, the inference would necessarily follow that Christianity is untenable, and incompatible with science. Not at all. First of all, natural scientists who oppose Christianity could hardly ever come forward in the capacity of experts in this matter. For by venturing the assertion that world-matter and world-force are eternal and uncreated, that they develop by force of natural causality, by unending evolution, and not by the power and direction of an intelligent cause, they leave their own province and trespass on the domain of philosophy. These and similar questions are not solved by natural science research, by experiment, observation, or calculation, but are the subjects of philosophical speculation. Atheism, materialism, the denial of the soul’s immortality or of eternal destination, all these are philosophical matters, and a natural science theory of the world is a misconception about as absurd as a Swiss England or a Bavarian Spain.

As it is impossible to review here all scientists of the past centuries, to probe their bent of mind, we shall restrict ourselves in the following to scientists of the first rank, for to them the assertion above mentioned must chiefly refer. First of all, they were possessed of that spirit of scientific research claimed to be incompatible with the faith; and they, more than others, should have been conscious of this contradiction. It is plain that if they did not know anything of the claimed antagonism between the theories of evolution and of creation, between physical facts and spirituality of soul, between natural law and miracles; if it be shown that many of them were actually orthodox Christians, believing in the supernatural and yet enthusiastic friends of science, fathoming the laws of nature and yet unshaken in their faith, then the fact that inferior minds talk of a contradiction unknown to these great ones can no longer make much of an impression.

Therefore let us look over the long list of great scholars of the last centuries, those great men to whom we owe knowledge and discoveries that are our joy to this very day. Among them we shall find many who, in their life and thought, have plainly confessed themselves faithful Christians; we shall find that others were at least the opponents of atheism and materialism, that they clung to the fundamental truths of the Christian faith, and that is a matter of moment when the antagonism between natural science and faith is under discussion.

We shall not go back to the ancient representatives of natural science, men like _Pythagoras_, _Aristotle_, _Archimedes_, _Albert the Great_, _Roger Bacon_, and others of past ages, partly because there is no doubt about the religious views of those men, partly because research at their time was imperfect. We begin at the rise of modern natural science.

The Old Masters.

At the threshold of modern natural science there stands the man who solved the riddle that had puzzled centuries before him, the father of modern astronomy, _Nikolaus Copernicus_. He had studied at the universities of Cracow, Bologna, Ferrara, and Padua, and while he was one of the foremost historians of his time, it was astronomy that had engaged his enthusiastic devotion from his youth. He was a Catholic priest, a Canon of Frauenberg. “If recent representatives of the Roman Church,” so writes the Protestant theologian, _O. Zoeckler_, “praise this Frauenberg Canon as a faithful son of their Church, this fact must be granted by Protestants, despite the frankness with which he opposed the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic theories taught by the scholastics, and despite his friendship with the Protestant _Rheticus_” (Gottes Zeugen im Reiche der Natur, 1906, p. 82). _George Joachim_, a native of Feldkirch, surnamed _Rheticus_, and a Protestant professor at Wittenberg, came to _Copernicus_ at Frauenberg, and was cordially received. His praise for “his teacher” is unreserved. He speaks in the same admiring terms of _Tiedemann Giese_, in those days Bishop of Kulm.

For nearly forty years _Copernicus_ sat in the modest observatory which he had erected at Frauenberg, studying and collecting the material for his book. Even after all this time this deliberate scholar, despite the urging of his friends, especially Bishop _Tiedemann Giese_ and Cardinal _Schoenberg_, Archbishop of Capua, hesitated for ten years longer before publishing his discoveries. The work was entitled _De revolutionibus orbium caelestium, libri VI_, and was dedicated to Pope _Paul III._ The author himself could enjoy his achievement but very little. The first copy sent by the printer reached _Copernicus_ on his deathbed, and a few hours later he breathed his last, on May 24, 1543.

In the introduction to his work this devout Christian scientist wrote: “Who would not be urged by the intimate intercourse with the work of His hands to the contemplation of the Most High, and to the admiration for the Omnipotent Architect of the universe, in whom is the highest happiness, and in whom is the perfection of all that is good?”

Without _Copernicus_ there could have been no _Kepler_, without _Kepler_ no _Newton_. These three men, in the words of a recent astronomer, belong inseparably together, they support and supplement one another. It might be fittingly asked, after which of these three the celestial system should be named; and were it possible to ask these three men for their opinion in this matter, they would probably all give the answer that has been ascribed to one or the other of them: Not my system, but God’s Order. Like _Copernicus_, so _Kepler_ and _Newton_ were profoundly religious men.

_Johann Kepler_, born of Protestant parents in Württemberg in 1571, was raised a Lutheran. In 1594 he was appointed professor of mathematics at a school in Graz, and after that he dwelt for the most time in Austria, which country became his second home. From Graz he was called to Prague to be mathematician at the imperial court, and from there to Linz to be professor at the college there. His last years were passed at Sagan and Ratisbon, where he died in 1630. Even after having left Austria he gratefully remembered the _clementia austriaca_ and the _favor archiducalis_. _Kepler’s_ astronomical achievements are known to everybody, especially his laws of the planets. With an untiring spirit of research he combined beautiful traits of character, cheerfulness, kindness, and modesty, but chiefly a profoundly religious mind. However, he was in difficult circumstances as far as his religious life was concerned. Quite early he came in conflict with the religious authorities of his confession, particularly for the reason that they considered _Kepler’s_ Copernican views as against the Bible, a fact which the learned astronomer could not see. There were also other differences. The conflict became more and more aggravated. It cannot be denied that the Lutheran Church-authorities proceeded against _Kepler_ with a lack of consideration never shown by Rome against men like _Galileo_. _Kepler_ was expelled from the Lutheran Church, and despite his efforts to be reinstated the ban was never lifted.

Like _Kepler_, so was his predecessor at the Catholic court of
Prague, the Danish astronomer _Tycho Brahe_ (died 1601), a devout
Protestant, but the trials of _Kepler_ were spared him. His
erroneous idea that the Copernican system conflicted with Holy
Writ kept him from subscribing to it: it led him to devise a
system midway between _Copernicus_ and _Ptolemy_. His religious
sentiment is evidenced by a passage from a letter of his, written
at his father’s death, “Although there are many consolations for
me, of a religious nature based on Holy Writ, and of a
philosophical kind drawn from the contemplation of the fate of all
men and of the inconstancy of everything under the moon, it is a
special comfort for me that my father departed so sweetly and
piously from this valley of misery to the heavenly eternal home,
where, according to _St. Paul_, we shall find a lasting abode.”

But let us return to _Kepler_. There is evidence that at various times in his life he wavered between his Lutheran confession and the Catholic faith, but that is as far as he went. He was of the opinion that the fundamental truths of both were in accord, and he would not presume to judge of the differences; he had taken a view-point of his own, from which he could not be made to recede. On the other hand, he was shocked when his fellow-Lutherans in Styria were on two occasions severely dealt with, although he personally had been treated with especial consideration. Otherwise his opinions on Catholic matters and the “wisdom” of the Catholic Church were eminently fair; he censured his co-religionists for their invidious attacks on Rome, and for their hesitancy in adopting the Gregorian reform of the calendar. He had friendly relation with many a Catholic scientist, was in correspondence with many Jesuits, was even frequently their guest, receiving stimulus, commendation, and scientific communications from them.

To _Kepler_ the study of astronomy became largely a prayer; the finest of his scientific works he was wont to conclude with the doxology of the Psalmist, “Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His wisdom there is no number: praise Him ye Heavens; praise ye Him, O Sun, and Moon, ye Stars and light, and praise Him in your language. Thou, too, praise Him, O soul of mine, thy Lord, thy Creator, as long as it is granted to thee” (_Harmonices Mundi_, v. 9). His name and work is commemorated in the Keplerbund in Germany, which aims at the promotion of scientific knowledge in the sense of _Kepler_, in opposition to the misuse of natural science for purposes of materialism and atheism.

The work, begun so happily by _Copernicus_ and _Kepler_, was completed by the great Englishman, _Newton_ (died 1727). It was he who in his immortal work, _Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica_, laid bare the law of the universe, which compels the heavenly bodies to revolve about one another. Therewith the laws of _Kepler_, and consequently the Copernican hypothesis, became established. When, in 1727, this scientist, at the age of eighty-five, died, his mortal remains were entombed in Westminster Abbey, the Pantheon of the British nation. Lofty science and the reverent worship of his Creator were combined in the noble mind of this great Briton. In an appendix to his master-work, referred to above, he cited his proofs for the existence of God, and stated that “the entire order, as to space and time of all things existing, must have necessarily proceeded from the conception and will of an existing Being,” that “the admirable arrangement of sun, planets, and comets could only emanate from the decree and the design of an All-wise and Omnipotent Being,” that “we admire Him for His perfections, we adore and worship Him as the ruler of the world, we, the servants of the great Sovereign of the Universe.” According to _Voltaire_, it was stated by _Newton’s_ disciple, _Clarke_, that his master invariably pronounced the name of God with reverent attitude and expression.

Inseparably connected with the history of the Copernican system
there is the name, which recalls harsh accusations and painful
memories, the name of _Galileo_. That he had nothing in common
with the aims of those who have broken with faith and
Christianity, nor with that hostility against his Church for which
his name is so often misused, has been made evident by what we
have said on another page (see page 189). Not only during his
early life was his religious turn of mind evidenced, but also
later on and up to the end of his life he continued to observe
faithfully the duties of his religion.

One of the greatest physicists of recent times was _Christian Huygens_, who died in 1695 at his native city, The Hague. To him we owe the epoch-making discovery of the undulation of light, while _Newton_ had held light to be a matter of emission. But while _Huygens_ advanced over _Newton_ in this respect, he paid tribute to human limitation by remaining prejudiced against _Newton’s_ theory of gravitation, which he rejected. _Huygens_ was a believing Christian.

In his philosophic dissertation “Kosmotheoros,” a posthumous work,
he says in regard to the possibility of the celestial bodies being
inhabited: “How could the investigator look up to God, the Creator
of all these great worlds, otherwise but in the spirit of deepest
reverence? Here it will be possible for us to find manifold proofs
to demonstrate His providence and wonderful wisdom; likewise will
our contemplation contend against those who are spreading false
opinions, such as attributing the origin of the earth to the
accidental union of atoms, or of the earth being without a
beginning and without a creator.”

Religious fervour is still more pronounced in _Huygens’_ contemporary, _Robert Boyle_ (died 1692), a son of Ireland. While he had made considerable achievements in physics, his chief fame lies in chemistry: he inaugurated the period in which chemistry became gradually an independent science. Although working in a different field of research, he is similar to _Newton_ in many respects: like _Newton_ and _Huygens_, his love of scientific studies induced him to remain unmarried, like _Newton_ he found his last resting place in Westminster Abbey, but chiefly he is like _Newton_ because of his pious, religious mind. He was much occupied with theological studies, and in them the demonstration from nature of the existence of God, and the author’s reverence for the Scriptures are most conspicuous: “In relation to the Bible,” he writes, “all the books of men, even the most learned, are like the planets that receive their light and brightness from the sun.” On his deathbed he made a foundation for apologetic lectures: the Boyle-lectures are held to this very day.

We shall have to pass by others. We might point to the English
philosopher and statesman, _Francis Bacon_ of Verulam (died 1626),
who won his place in the history of natural science by his urging
of the empiric method; we might point to _W. Harvey_ (died 1658),
the discoverer of the blood-circulation, a man of earnest and
simple piety; we might mention the pious _Albrecht von Haller_
(died 1777), _J. Bernouilli_ (died 1728) the co-inventor of
integral calculus, the man of whom his great disciple _Euler_
relates that this _Bernouilli_, co-inventor of the most difficult
of all calculations, this great mathematician, expressed regret in
his old age that he had devoted so many years to science, and only
few hours to religion, and that on his deathbed he admonished
those around him to adhere to the Word of God because that alone
is the word of life.

We shall name but one more, a son of northern Sweden, the famous botanist, _Karl Linné_ (died 1778). He, too, found God in the living nature which he studied so diligently.

In commenting on his _Systema naturae_ he writes: “Man, know
thyself; in theological aspect, that thou art created with an
immortal soul, after the image of God; in moral aspect, that thou
alone art blessed with a rational soul for the praise of thy
sublime Creator. I ask, why did God put man equipped thus in sense
and spirit on this earth, where he perceives this wonderfully
ordered nature? For what, but to praise and admire the invisible
Master-builder for His magnificent work.”

These are the great masters and reformers of recent natural science, the men who opened up the paths which natural science of the present day is still pursuing; most of these savants were of a Christian mind, many of them even pious. There were but few indifferent or irreligious, such as _E. Halley_ (died 1742), who computed the cycle of the comet since named after him, and _G. de Buffon_ (died 1788): but they are a small minority. The period of highest achievement in modern natural science bears the stamp of religion; indeed, to a great extent it bears the halo of devotion and fervour. An incompatibility of research and faith, a solidarity of science and anti-Christian tendency, was never known to the mind of these great masters.

“Any one who has grasped even the elements of natural science, the unity of natural forces and their rigid conformity to laws, becomes a monist if he has the faculty for clear reasoning, and as to the others, there is no help for them anyway” (_L. Plate_, Ultramontane Weltanschauung und moderne Lebenskunde, 1907, 11). This sort of argument is shouted at us in manifold variations. How does that statement look in the light of history? Men like _Copernicus_, _Kepler_, _Newton_, _Linné_, _Boyle_, thus knew nothing of the elements of natural science, nothing of the conformity to laws of natural forces: because they were neither monists nor atheists, but worshippers of the Creator of heaven and earth! A more painful contrast cannot be imagined than to see these great masters and pioneers rated as lesser minds, ignorant of real natural science, by those who trail far behind them and who are seeking their footsteps. The religious conviction of the natural scientists of a past age is sufficient proof that, not the research in natural science, but other causes lead minds to infidelity.

Modern Times.

We turn to the nineteenth century. Does the picture perhaps change essentially in the century that has shown its children so much progress, that has disclosed so many secrets of nature, but has also taught irreligion to thousands of men? Does it become true now that natural science and Christian fundamental truths are opposed to each other in hostile attitude? Claims to this effect are not lacking. In fact, the number of those who refuse assent to the Christian religion is increasing. But even at this time we do not find such to be the majority of eminent scientists, and our inquiry is about eminent scientists, those who make the science of a period, not those who can hardly expect to have their names known by posterity. A considerable number, indeed the majority, of the master minds of natural science, even in the nineteenth century, reject materialism and atheism, and not infrequently they are pious Christians; another proof that just upon the deeper and more serious minds religion exercises a stronger power of attraction.

Let us commence with the astronomers.

“The sciences and their true representatives,” so states the renowned _Mädler_ of Dorpat, “do not deserve the reproaches and imputations heaped upon them from a certain side, that they would estrange man from God, even turn him into an atheist ... we hope to show of astronomy especially that just the contrary is taking place” (Reden und Abhandlungen über Gegenstände der Himmelskunde, 1870, 326).

The greatest astronomer of the nineteenth century, and one of the greatest discoverers of all ages, was undoubtedly _William Herschel_ (died 1822). His son _John Herschel_ (died 1871) became his “worthy successor, almost his peer, who won a fame nearly equal to that of the inherited name” (_R. Wolf_, Geschichte der Astronomie, 1877, 505). While not hostile to religion, the father had been so engrossed in his restless research, that religion received little attention, but religious thought and sentiment played a prominent part in the son. Time and again he opposed with zeal the materialistic-atheistic explanation of the universe. “Nothing is more unfounded than the objection made by some well-meaning but undiscerning persons, that the study of natural science induces a doubt of religion and of the immortality of the soul. Be assured that its logical effect upon any well-ordered mind must be just the opposite” (Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy, 1830, 7).

It was _Leverrier_ (died 1877), Director of the Paris Observatory, who by calculations ascertained the existence and exact position of the remotest planet Neptune even before it was discovered. When eventually _Galle_ of Berlin really found the planet in the position indicated, _Leverrier’s_ name became famous. But greater still were the achievements of this indefatigable investigator in respect to the known planets. When he presented to the French Academy the final part of his great work, the calculations of Jupiter and Saturnus, he said: “During our long labours, which it took us thirty-five years to complete, we needed the support obtained by the contemplation of one of the grandest works of creation, and by the thought that it strengthened in us the imperishable truths of a spiritualistic (_i.e._, non-materialistic) philosophy.” He was an orthodox Catholic, known as a Clerical. A newspaper complained of him that “Under the empire he was a clerical Senator, concerned with the interests of the altar no less than with those of the throne” (_Kneller_, Das Christenthum und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft, 1904, 96. In the following pages we have made frequent use of the material gathered in this sterling work. See also _James J. Walsh_, Makers of Modern Medicine (1907); and the same author’s Catholic Churchmen in Science, I (1909), II (1910)).

One year after the death of _Leverrier_ another scientist of the first rank died. It was _A. Secchi_ (died 1878). Member of nearly all the scientific academies of the world, he was not only a faithful Christian, but also a priest: for forty-five years, and until his death, he wore the garb of the Society of Jesus. As an astronomer he has been named, not without good cause, the father of astrophysics: he ascertained the chemical composition of about 4,000 stars and classified them into what is known as _Secchi’s_ four types of stars. As a physicist he wrote an important work on The Unity of Natural Forces. He was also an eminent meteorologist.

At the second International Exposition at Paris his meteorograph
was quite a feature. The _Kölnische Zeitung_ wrote, on March 2,
1878: “Visitors of the Italian Exhibition, at the second World’s
Fair in Paris, could see the marvellous instrument which does the
work of ten observers and surpasses them in accuracy. At the same
time they could obtain all needed information about details and
scope of the meteorograph from the exhibitor himself; for _Secchi_
was there daily, devoting several hours to answering questions in
any of the civilized languages of Europe. It is peculiarly
interesting to observe the silent movement of the hands working
day and night like registrars of the natural forces, and recording
for every quarter of an hour with the utmost accuracy all changes
in temperature, in humidity, every variance of the wind, any
movement of the mercury in the barometer. Even the force of the
wind and the time of rain is registered by this wonderful
instrument.” The inventor, out of 40,000 art exhibitors, was
awarded the great golden medal. He also received the insignia of
an officer of the French Legion of Honor, while the Emperor of
Brazil appointed him an officer of the “Golden Rose.”

The French scientist _Moigno_ writes of _Secchi_: “_Secchi_ was
very pious, and as a worker he knew no limits. He was ever ready
to evolve new scientific plans, to enter into new and long
campaigns of observation. The mere list of his 800 works reveals
him as one of the most intrepid workers of our century. And let
this be considered: every one of these writings, no matter how
brief, was the result of subtle and difficult researches and
observations. And after devoting the day to arduous writing, he
passed the night searching the skies” (_Pohle_, P. Angelo Secchi,
1904, 191).

In the nineteenth century, too, astronomy has not failed in its
mission of leading to God. A long list could be named of believing
astronomers of great achievements. For instance, the Roman
astronomer _Respighi_ (died 1889), a resolute Catholic. And
_Lamont_, Director of the Observatory of Munich, whose Catholic
orthodoxy was generally known. _Heis_ (died 1877) likewise was a
zealous Catholic: when he had finished his map of the sky, after
27 years of hard work, he sent one of the first copies to _Pius
IX._ The astronomers _Bessel_ and _Olbers_ speak in their letters
of God, of the hereafter and Providence, in a way that has nothing
in common with materialism.

_Secchi_ was not the only priest and monk among the astronomers of
the nineteenth century. The very first day of the century was made
notable by the astronomical achievement of a monk. _Joseph
Piazzi_, a member of the Theatine order (died 1826), discovered on
that day the first asteroid, Ceres. The great mathematician
_Gauss_ named his first born son Joseph, in _Piazzi’s_ honor.

It is, indeed, a remarkable fact, testifying strongly against the
incompatibility of natural science and faith, that just the
Catholic clergy, the prominent representatives of religion and
faith, have contributed a large contingent to the number of
natural scientists. _Poggendorf’s_ Biographical Dictionary of the
Exact Sciences contains, down to 1863, according to preface and
recapitulation, the names and biographical sketches of 8,847
natural scientists. Of these, 862 are Catholic priests, amounting
to 9.8 per cent. To appreciate these 10 per cent it must be taken
into account that most of them were not connected with natural
science by their position, but only through their personal
interest, and most of them were engaged in other duties.

Mathematics, although not natural science proper, is inseparably connected with it. For this reason we may extend our consideration to mathematicians. We only point to the three greatest, _Euler_, _Gauss_, and _Cauchy_, and all three were religious men. _Euler_ (died 1783 at Petersburg) has no peer in the recent history of science in prolific activity: ten times he was awarded the prize by the Paris Academy of Sciences. _Cantor_ says of him: “Like most great mathematicians, _Euler_ was profoundly religious, though without bigotry. He personally conducted every evening the private devotions at his home, and one of the few polemical books he wrote was a defence of revelation against the objections of free-thinkers.” Its publication at Berlin in 1747, in close proximity of the court of _Frederick the Great_, presupposed a certain moral courage. In this book he refers to the difficulties found in all sciences, even in geometry, adding: “By what right then can the free-thinkers demand of us to reject at once Holy Writ in its entirety, because of some difficulties which frequently are not even so important as those complained of in geometry?” _Gauss_ (died 1855) is perhaps the greatest mathematician of all times. It sounds incredible, yet it is well attested, that as a child of three years, when in the workshop of his father, a plain mechanic, he was able to correct the father if he made a mistake in figuring out the wages paid to his journeymen. His biographer, _Waltershausen_, says of him: “The conviction of a personal existence after death, the firm belief in an ultimate Ruler of things, in an eternal, just, all-wise and all-powerful God, formed the foundation of his religious life, which, with his unsurpassed scientific researches, resolved itself into a perfect harmony.” _Cauchy_ (died 1857) was a man of most extraordinary genius, whose creative genius knew how to discover new paths everywhere, and almost at every weekly meeting of the Paris Academy _Cauchy_ had something new to offer. In addition he was a dutiful Catholic, and a member of St. Vincent’s Society. When, shortly before the February revolution, an onslaught upon the Jesuit schools was made, he defended them in two pamphlets.

One of them contains the following confession of faith: “I am a
Christian, that is, I believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ,
with _Tycho __ Brahe_, _Copernicus_, _Descartes_, _Newton_,
_Fermat_, _Leibnitz_, _Pascal_, _Grimaldi_, _Euler_, _Guldin_,
_Boscovich_, _Gerdil_; with all great astronomers, all great
physicists, all great mathematicians of past centuries. I am also
a Catholic, with the majority of them, and if asked for my
reasons, I would enumerate them readily. By them it would be made
clear that my conviction is not the result of inherited
prejudices, but of profound inquiry. I am a sincere Catholic, as
_Corneille_, _Racine_, _La Bruyère_, _Bossuet_, _Bourdaloue_,
_Fénelon_ were, and such as were and still are a large portion of
the most eminent men of our times, among them those who have
achieved most in the exact sciences, in philosophy and literature,
and who have most prominently adorned our Academy” (_Valson_, Vie
de Cauchy, I, 173). When near death, and told that the priest
would bring the Holy Sacrament, he ordered the finest flowers of
his garden used in the reception of the Lord.

We now come to the physicists. To begin with the most prominent representatives of the science of optics, which was developed especially during the first half of the century, there are to be named chiefly _Fresnel_, _Frauenhofer_, _Fizeau_, _Foucault_. _A. Fresnel_ (died 1827), the originator of the modern theory of light, clung to his conviction of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. _Frauenhofer_ (died 1826) showed himself to be a man of refinement and of kindness, which only occasionally was disturbed by natural irritability: he was much devoted to his religion, so that even his guests while at his house had to observe the abstinence prescribed by the Church; this was quite significant, considering the indifference of his times in this respect. _Fizeau_ (died 1896), too, was a staunch Catholic, who fearlessly testified to his belief, even before the Paris Academy. Though his work was of the first rank, France’s chief marks of honour passed him by, and little notice was even given to his death. A significant fact. “These circumstances,” so writes _Kneller_, “induced us to inquire for particulars; and through the services of friends we obtained information in Paris from most reliable source that _Fizeau_ was a faithful Christian, who fulfilled his religious duties. For this very reason his name had been stricken, at the Centenary of the Academy, from the list of candidates for the cross of the legion of honor, notwithstanding the fact that, on the strength of his scientific achievement, he should long have been Commander and even Grand Officer of this order.” _Cornu_ was the only one to protest against this slight. _Foucault_ (died 1868) had, in the time of his restless scientific work, taken an unsympathetic attitude towards the Catholic religion. In his last illness he returned, step by step, to his Creator and Redeemer, in whom he found his comfort, and he breathed his last in peace with God and the Church.

_Foucault’s_ great countryman, _Ampère_ (died 1836), the celebrated investigator in the fields of electricity, was also estranged from the Christian religion, but, after passing through torturing doubts, he regained undisturbed possession of his Catholic faith, and was a pious Christian at the time of his brilliant discoveries. He had frequent intercourse with _A. F. Ozanam_, and the discussion almost without exception turned to God. Then _Ampère_ would cover his forehead with his hands, exclaiming: “How great God is! Ozanam! how great God is, and our knowledge is as nothing.” “This venerable head,” _Ozanam_ relates of his friend, “covered with honours and full of knowledge, bowed down before the mysteries of the faith; he knelt at the same altars where before him _Descartes_ and _Pascal_ worshipped humbly, beside the poor widow and the small child, who perhaps were less humble than he” (_A. F. Ozanam_, Oeuvres Complètes, X, 37, and VIII, 89). As he was dying, and _M. Deschamps_, director of the college of Marseille, began to read aloud some passages from the “Imitation of Christ,” the dying man remarked that he knew the book by heart.

Another great discoverer in the domain of electricity, who had preceded _Ampère_, was _Volta_ (died 1827). Like his great fellow countryman, _Galvani_ (died 1798), who did not disdain to be a member of the third order of St. Francis, _Volta_ was a staunch Catholic; every day he recited the rosary.

At Como, his home, he was daily seen to go to holy Mass and, on holidays, to the Sacraments. Those who passed his house on Saturdays saw a small lamp burning before the picture of the Blessed Virgin Mary over his door. If the servant forgot to light the lamp, _Volta_ did it himself. On Feast days, when visiting the parish church, the great electrician could be seen among the children, explaining the catechism to them.

A friend of _Volta_, the Canon _Giacomo Ciceri_, once was
endeavoring to convert a dying man, who, however, refused to hear
him, on the ground that whereas religion might be good for the
common people, scientists did not need it, and he reckoned himself
among them. _Ciceri_ thereupon reminded him of _Volta_. This made
an impression upon the dying man, who declared that if _Volta_ be
seriously religious, and not only as a matter of convention, he
would consent to receive the Sacraments. The Canon then requested
_Volta_ to write a few lines. _Volta_ replied as follows: “I do
not understand how anybody can doubt my sincerity and constancy in
the religion which I profess, and which is that of Catholic,
Apostolic, Roman Church, wherein I was born and raised, and which
I have professed all my life, inwardly and outwardly.... Should
any misdemeanor on my part have prompted any one to suspect me of
unbelief, then I will declare, for the purpose of making
reparation ... that I always have believed this Holy Catholic
religion to be the only true and infallible one, and that I still
think so, and I thank our dear Lord incessantly for having given
me this belief, in which to live and to die is my resolution, in
the firm hope of gaining the eternal life. It is true, I
acknowledge this belief to be a gift of God, a supernatural
belief; yet, I have not neglected human means to fortify myself in
this belief, and to drive away all doubts that may arise to tempt
me. For this reason, I have studied the faith diligently in its
foundations, by reading apologetic and controversial writings,
weighing the reasons for and against; a way, which supplies the
strongest proof, and makes it most credible for the human reason
to such a degree, that any noble mind, not perverted by sins and
passions, cannot help embracing and loving it. I wish this
profession, for which I was asked and which I willingly make,
written and signed by my own hand, to be shown at will to any one,
because I am not ashamed of the Gospel. May my writing bear good
fruit.

_Alexander Volta._

MILAN, January 6th, 1815.
(_C. Grandi_, Alessandro Volta, 1899, 575.)”

He who, for the first time, is made aware of the religious confession of the greatest natural scientists may perhaps be astonished. Hitherto, he had heard little of the Christian mind of these men, but a great deal about their alleged indifference for religion, and about their materialism and atheism. Now, suddenly, he sees a large number of them to be the enemies of atheism, many, indeed, to be zealous Christians.

This is due to the biographers: they dwell largely on the scientific achievement of a man, likewise on his human qualities, but his religion is often not mentioned at all. When, in 1888, a monument was erected to _Ampère_ in his native city, Lyons, not a word in the speeches referred to the fact that he was a faithful Catholic. Nay, more; on one of the books seen on his monument is chiselled in bold letters the word “Encyclopédie.” Those unaware of the facts would infer that _Ampère_ had been one of the Encyclopædists. His actual relation to this infamous work was that he had read it in his youth, but abhorred it in his later age.

The English physicist, _Faraday_ (died 1867), according to _Tyndall_ and _Du Bois-Reymond_ the greatest experimentist of all times, was, like _Volta_ and _Ampère_, of religious mind.

In a letter to a lady he wrote: “I belong to a small and despised
Christian sect, known by the name of Sandemanians. Our hope is
based upon the belief which is in Christ.” In 1847, he concluded
his lectures at the Royal Institution with the following words:
“In teaching us those things, our science should prompt us to
think of Him whose works they are.” At a later lecture, he
declared: “I have never encountered anything to cause a
contradiction between things within the scope of man, and the
higher things, relating to his future and unconceivable to
(unaided) human mind” (_Jones_, The Life and Letters of Faraday).

Of the same bent of mind was _Faraday’s_ fellow countryman, _Maxwell_ (died 1879), known to every one who has studied the development of the theories of electricity. This ingenious theoretician of electrics, professor of experimental physics at Cambridge, was deeply religious. Every evening he led in the family prayer; he regularly attended divine service, and partook of the monthly communion of his denomination. Those more intimately acquainted with _Maxwell_ agree, that he was one of the worthiest men they ever met.

Nothing could better illustrate his religious sentiment than the
splendid prayer found among his posthumous papers: “Almighty God,
Thou who hast created man after Thy image and hast given him a
living soul, that he should search Thee and rule over Thy
creatures, teach us to study the works by Thy hands that we may
subject the earth for our use, and strengthen our reason for Thy
service, and let us receive Thy holy word thus, that we may
believe in Him whom Thou hast sent us to give us the knowledge of
salvation and the forgiving of our sins, all of which we pray for
in the name of the same Jesus Christ, our Lord”
(_Campbell-Garnett_, The Life of J. C. Maxwell).

_Maxwell’s_ devout mind is especially significant here, because, like _Ampère_ and _Volta_, he occupied himself much with philosophical and theological questions. Every Sunday upon return from church he is said to have buried himself in his theological books.

Many others might be mentioned of English physicists of the past century, who combined religious belief with great knowledge. The peculiar trait of the English character to respect and preserve with piety the inherited institutions of the past, as against radicalism and the craze for innovation, manifests itself also in the absence of the immature and frivolous juggling with the great truths of the Christian past, not infrequently met with elsewhere. Let us mention but one more of England’s great men who have died in recent years. In December, 1907, the papers reported the death of _William Thomson_, latterly better known as _Lord Kelvin_. He lived to the age of 83 years, up to his death incessantly busy with scientific work. As early as 1855, _Helmholtz_ described him as “one of the foremost mathematical physicists of Europe.(7)” The Berlin Academy of Science expressed high praise and admiration in its address felicitating _Thomson_ on his Golden Jubilee. Undoubtedly, he merited this admiration also by stoutly defending from the viewpoint of science the necessity of a Divine Creator.

“We do not know,” he wrote, “at what moment a creation of matter
or of energy fixed a beginning beyond which no speculation based
on mechanical laws is able to lead us. In exact mechanics, if we
were ever inclined to forget this barrier, we necessarily would be
reminded of it by the consideration that reasoning, resting
exclusively upon the law of mechanics, points to a time when the
earth must have been uninhabited, and it also teaches us that our
own bodies, like those of all living plants and animals, and
fossils, are organized forms of matter for which science can give
no other explanation than the will of a Creator, a truth, in
support of which geological history offers rich evidence” (On
Mechanical Antecedent of Motion, Heat and Light, 1884). “The only
contribution of dynamics to theoretical biology consists in the
absolute negation of an automatic beginning and automatic
continuance of life” (Addresses and Speeches).

On May 1, 1902, the Rev. Prof. _G. Henslow_, according to the
_London Times_, spoke at University College, before a big audience
with the President of the University as chairman, on the subject
“The Rationalism of To-day, an Examination of Darwinism.” On
conclusion of the speech the venerable octogenarian, _Lord
Kelvin_, arose and proposed a resolution of thanks to the speaker.
While fully subscribing to the fundamental ideas of Prof.
_Henslow’s_ lecture, _Lord Kelvin_ said, he could not assent to
the proposition that natural science neither affirms nor denies
the origin of life by a creative force. He stated that natural
science _does_, positively, assert a creative force. Science
forces every one to recognize a miracle within himself. That we
are living, and moving, and existing, is not due to dead matter,
but to a creating and directing force, and science forces us to
accept this assumption as a tenet of faith. _Lord Kelvin_
subsequently amplified these remarks in an article that appeared
in the _Nineteenth Century_, of June, 1903. It concludes with the
admonition, not to be afraid to think independently. “If you
reason sharply, you will be forced by science to believe in God,
who is the basis of all religion. You will find science to be, not
an opponent of religion, but a support” (_Times_, May 8 and 15,
1903).

Such were the views of those to whom, in the first place, the establishment of natural science and its progress are due. It is not science and strong reasoning that lead away from God, but the lack of true science. _Bacon_ said: _Leviores gustus in philosophia movere fortasse animum ad atheismum, sed pleniores haustus ad Deum reducere_. Another thing must be observed. Among those earnest men, earnest in the investigation of nature, and earnest in the consideration of questions of a supernatural life, there are many who made the religious question the subject of mature study, and who were well acquainted with the objections against religion and Christianity. But they cling to their religious persuasion only the more firmly. We may be reminded of men like _Volta_, _Cauchy_, _Ampère_, and _Maxwell_.

To speak of authorities, what comparison is there between these great scientists and discoverers, and those who are satisfied with the general assurance that “any one who has grasped the elements of natural sciences must become a monist,” and “that the supernatural exists only in the brain of the visionary and ignorant,” that, “in the same measure in which the victorious progress of modern knowledge of nature surpasses the scientific achievements of former centuries, the untenableness of all mystical views of life that tend to harness the reason in the yoke of so-called revelation has been made clear” (_Haeckel_), and who in such assurance find perfect intellectual gratification. They recall an incident at the Congress of English natural scientists, held at Belfast in 1874, when _Tyndall_ delivered from the platform a materialistic lecture, and among the audience sat _Maxwell_, his superior in scientific research, who put down the lecture in doggerel rhyme, in a humorous vein, of course, but not without deserved sarcasm.

We proceed on our way, trying to make haste, and omitting many names that might be mentioned, limiting ourselves to the most prominent ones.

Among the chemists we name _Lavoisier_. A martyr to his science, he died under the guillotine of the Revolution in 1794; he had remained true to his Christian faith. The Swede, _J. Berzelius_ (died 1848), openly professed his belief in God. _Thénard_ (died 1859), the discoverer of boron, of a blue dye named after him, and of many other chemicals, was a staunch Catholic. The pastor of St. Sulpice could testify at his funeral as follows: “He attended church every Sunday, eyes and heart fixed on his prayer-book, and on solemn Feast days he received Holy Communion.... With _Baron Thénard_ one of the greatest benefactors of my poor people is gone” (_Kneller_).

_Dumas_ (died 1884), who is esteemed by his pupil _Pasteur_ as the peer of _Lavoisier_, was also a practical Catholic, as was his compatriot _Chevreul_ (died 1889). This great man had the rare good fortune to be present at his own centenary in 1886. At this great celebration he received an address by the Berlin Academy, stating that his name had a prominent place on the list of the great scientists who had carried the scientific repute of France to all quarters of the globe. When, in view of the mundane character of the celebration, the liberal press endeavoured to rank him among the representatives of unbelieving science, and this question being discussed in public, _Chevreul_ felt himself constrained to proclaim his religious persuasion openly in a letter to _Count de Montravel_, in which he said: “I am simply a scientist, but those who know me, know also that I was born a Catholic, that I lead a Catholic life, and that I want to die a Catholic” (Civilta Cattolica, 1891, 292).

Two Germans may conclude the list of chemists, _Schoenbein_ (died 1868) and _J. Liebig_ (died 1873).

In his diary, “Menschen und Dinge,” 1885 (page 29), _Schoenbein_
writes: “There are still people who fancy in their limited mind
that, the deeper the human intellect penetrates the secrets of
nature, the more extensive its knowledge, the wider its conception
of the exterior world, the more it must forget the cause of all
things. Many have gone even so far as to assert that natural
science must lead to the denial of God. This view is without all
foundation. He, who contemplates with open eyes, daily and hourly,
the doings and workings of nature, will not only believe, but will
actually perceive, and be firmly convinced, that there is not the
smallest place in space where the divine does not reveal itself in
the most magnificent and admirable way.” And in a similar strain
_Liebig_ writes: “Indeed, the greatness and infinite wisdom of the
Creator of the world can be realized only by him who endeavours to
understand His ideas as laid down in that immense book,—nature, in
comparison to which everything that men otherwise know and tell of
Him, appears like empty talk” (Die Chemie in ihrer Anwendung).

Now let us turn to the geographers. We merely mention _Ritter_ (died 1859), the man who raised geography to the dignity of a science; he was a faithful Protestant, while biassed against the Catholic Church. In spite of this, a Catholic historian, _J. Janssen_, has sketched his life, in which we read: “Firm in his belief in the living God, and in the Incarnate Son of God, His Redeemer, he furnishes a clear and convincing proof that this faith, far from being a contradiction to natural science ... alone enables man to acquire an extensive and deep knowledge of nature.” We give only passing notice to the founder of scientific crystallography, _R. Hauy_ (died 1822), who was a dutiful Catholic priest. The geologists now will get a hearing.

Among them we meet, in the first place, the noted geologist and
zoölogist, _Cuvier_ (died 1832), a faithful Protestant: also the
foremost French geologist of his time, _L. De Beaumont_ (died
1874), “a Christian in all things and a steadfast Christian ...
which he remained through his whole life;” so _Dumas_ testifies of
him in his obituary (Comptes Rendus, 1874). Then there is _J.
Barrande_, the untiring explorer of the antediluvian strata of
Bohemia. He came in 1830 to Bohemia with the banished royal
family, as _Chambord’s_ teacher, and died 1883 at Frohsdorf near
Vienna. He was a pious Catholic. The volumes of his works are
nearly all dated on Catholic feasts. The recently deceased French
geologist, _A. De Lapparent_, was a practical Catholic, and such
were the two Belgian geologists, _J. d’Omalius_ (died 1875), and
_A. Dumont_ (died 1857), to both of whom Belgium owes its
geological exploration. The English geologists, _Buckland_ (died
1856), _Hitchcock_ (died 1864), and _A. Sedgwick_ (died 1872),
were ministers of the English Church. _J. Dwight Dana_ (died
1895), the foremost geologist of North America, begins his
celebrated text-book of geology with a homage to his Creator, and
concludes it by paying tribute to Holy Writ. _W. Dawson_ (died
1899) the worthy geological explorer of his native land, Canada,
published several apologetic dissertations on the Bible and
Nature. A kindred sentiment animated the German scientists,
_Bischof_ (died 1870), _Quenstedt_ (died 1898), the geologist of
Suabia _Pfaff_ (died 1886), _Schafhæutl_ (died 1890), and the
equally pious as learned Swiss geologist _O. Heer_ (died 1883).
They all have much to say about the greatness of their Creator,
but not a word of any insolvable contradictions between the Bible
and geologic research.

As a last division of an imposing phalanx, there are now the biologists and physiologists. Modern biology, as the science of life, has in the eyes of many accomplished the bold deed of demonstrating the superfluity of a soul distinct from matter. Claim is made that it has sufficiently explained the sensitive and mental life by the sole agency of physical and chemical forces, and thus to have removed the boundary between live and dead matter. It is said, further, that biology in conjunction with zoölogy and botany has furnished proof that the wonderful organic forms of life may be explained by purely natural causes, without having to assume as an ultimate cause the act of a higher intelligence; that a never ceasing evolution is the sole ultimate cause,—creation is made superfluous by evolution. Biology is thus claimed to have refuted the old dualism of soul and matter, of world and God, and to have awarded the palm to monism.

Are the eminent representatives of this science really the materialists and monists they would have to be, if all this were true? The foremost physiologist of the nineteenth century was _J. Müller_ (died 1858), buried in the Catholic cemetery at Berlin. He was a decided opponent of materialism; he not only contended for the existence of a spiritual soul, but also for an immaterial vital force in plants. _Th. Schwann_ (died 1882) is the founder of the cellular theory. In the year 1839 he accepted a call to take the chair of anatomy at the Catholic University of Louvain. One of the most prominent physiologists of the nineteenth century was _A. Volkmann_ (died 1877). He was a stout champion of the spirituality and immortality of the soul, of purposive cause in animated beings, and an opponent of _Darwin’s_ theory. _G. J. Mendel_ (died 1884) became by his work on _Experimenting with Hybrid Plants_ the pioneer of the modern theory of hereditary transmission, adopted by modern biology; and scientists like _H. de Vries_, _Correns_, _Tschermak_, and _Bateson_ followed his lead. “His important laws of hereditary transmission are the best so far offered by the research in this field” (_Muckermann_, Grundriss der Biologie). He was a Catholic priest, and the abbot of the Augustinian Monastery at Old-Brünn. _Karl von Vierordt_ (died 1884) is well known by his “Manual of Physiology,” still in demand as a reference book in the libraries of universities. In 1865 he delivered a speech at the Tübingen University on the unity of science, concluding with this appeal to the students: “Until your religious notions become clear by a mature insight, trust in the well-meant assurance that the belief in the divinity of the religion of Jesus has not been put falsely into your heart. True piety is equally remote from narrow pietism as from freethinking indifference; it leaves to reason its full rights, but it also assures to us the faculty to be aware, in joyful confidence in Almighty Providence, of an immaterial and for us eternal destiny.” _Ch. Ehrenberg_ (died 1876) is the explorer of the world of little things: of infusoria and protozoa. He did not countenance _Haeckel’s_ materialism nor _Darwin’s_ denial of teleology: to him they were fantastic theories and romances. A friend of his, and of the same mind, was _K. von Martius_, who admired God’s wisdom in the wonders of the world of vegetation. Long before his death he ordered his burial dress to be made of white cloth embroidered with a green cross,—“a cross because I am a Christian, and green in honour of botany.” Another renowned name may be mentioned, that of the Austrian anatomist _J. Hyrtl_ (died 1894).

In the years when materialism was flourishing, _Hyrtl_ was
painfully grieved to see science fall into disrepute through the
fault of individuals. He gave vent to his indignation on the
occasion of the fifth centenary of the Vienna University (1864),
when, having been elected Rector, and being considered the
greatest celebrity at that college, he delivered his inaugural
speech on the materialistic tendency of our times. Summing up he
said: “I am at a loss how to explain what scientific grounds there
are to defend and fortify a revival of the old materialistic views
of an _Epicurus_ and a _Lucretius_, and to endeavour to insure to
it a permanent rule.... Its success is due to the boldness of its
assertion and to the prevailing spirit of the time, which
popularizes teachings of this sort the more willingly, the more
danger they seem to entail for the existing order of things.” It
was the same protest made some years later by another famous
scientist against “the dangerous opinion that there were dogmas of
natural science in inimical opposition to the highest ideals of
the human mind.” He stated that “it would be a desirable reward
for the efforts of our foremost naturalists to erect with the aid
of anthropology a barrier to this error which is so demoralizing
for the people” (_J. Ranke_, Der Mensch, 1894).

_Hyrtl’s_ speech at once aroused a storm of indignation in the
liberal press of Vienna, and the great scientist, until then
honoured and extolled, became the object of denunciation and
sneer. Thus was the freedom of science understood in those
circles.

_Haeckel_ was much vexed by two fellow scientists, _M. von Baer_
(died 1876) and _G. J. Romanes_ (died 1894). _Baer_ was prominent
in the science of evolution. He was led to theism by his studies.
_Romanes_, a friend of _Darwin_, had been an adherent of
materialism, but through serious study he returned to the belief
in God and Christianity. His posthumous work, “Thoughts on
Religion, a scientist’s religious evolution from Atheism to
Christianity,” furnishes a brilliant voucher thereof. _Romanes’s_
conversion was a sad blow for _Haeckel_. However, he constructed
an explanation to give himself comfort. “When the news of this
conversion,” he wrote, “was first circulated by a friend of
_Romanes_, a zealous English Churchman, the assumption suggested
itself to me that it was all a mystification and invention, for it
is known that the fanatical champions of ecclesiastical
superstition have never hesitated to pervert the truth to save
their dogma. Later on, however, it was found that it was really an
instance (analogous to the case of old _Baer_) of one of those
interesting psychological metamorphoses with which I have dealt in