tand a religious
mood--that is, we must believe in religion before we examine it,
otherwise our examination is profanity. Well, that is just the cry of
the priest in all ages. And while it is sound religion, there is no
question of its being shocking science. Even the mere feeling of
exaltation is not to be encouraged during a scientific investigation.
One can understand Kepler when he had discovered the true laws of
planetary motion, or Newton when he embraced in one magnificent
generalisation the fall of a stone and the revolution of a planet,
experiencing a feeling of exaltation; but exaltation must follow, not
precede, the conclusion. At any rate, there are few scientific teachers
who would encourage such a feeling during investigation.

Leaving for a moment the question of religious geniuses being the
aristocrats of human emotion, we may take the same writer's view of the
limitations of science, thus providing an opening for the intrusion of
religion. This is given in the form of a criticism of the following
well-known passage from Huxley:--

If the fundamental proposition of evolution is true, namely, that
the entire world, animate and inanimate, is the result of the
mutual interaction, according to definite laws, of forces possessed
by the molecules which made up the primitive nebulosity of the
universe; then it is no less certain that the present actual world
reposed potentially in the cosmic vapour, and that an intelligence,
if great enough, could from his knowledge of the properties of the
molecules of that vapour have predicted the state of the fauna in
Great Britain in 1888 with as much certitude as we say what will
happen to the vapour of our breath on a cold day in winter.

Now, if the principle of evolution be accepted, the truth of Huxley's
statement appears to be self-evident. It may be that no intelligence
capable of making such a calculation will ever exist, but the abstract
possibility remains. Professor Thomson calls it "a very strong and
confident statement," which illustrates the need for philosophical
criticism. His criticism of Huxley's statement is based on two grounds.
These are: (1) "No complete physico-chemical description has ever been
given of any distinctively vital activity; and (2) the physical
description of things cannot cover biological phenomena, nor can the
biological description cover mental and moral phenomena." There is, he