of any kind, and therefore
the {108} evolved forms of fetichism which we call forms of religion
have no value either of any kind. Thus, science--the science of
religion--is supposed to demonstrate by scientific methods the real
nature and the essential character of all religion.

Now, the error in this reasoning proceeds partly on a false conception
of the object and method of science--a false conception which is slowly
but surely disappearing. The object of all science, whether it be
physical science or other, whether it be historic science or other, is
to establish facts. The object of the historic science of religion is
to record the facts of the history of religion in such a way that the
accuracy of the record as a record will be disputed by no one qualified
to judge the fact. For that purpose, it abstains deliberately and
consistently from asking or considering the religious value of any of
the facts with which it deals. It has not to consider, and does not
consider, what would have been, still less what ought to have been, the
course of history, but simply what it was. In this it is following
merely the dictates of common sense; before we can profitably express
an opinion on any occurrence, we must know what exactly it was that
occurred; and to learn what occurred we must {109} divest our minds of
preconceptions. It is the business of the science of religion to set
aside preconceptions as to whether religion has or has not any value;
and if it does set them aside, that is to say so far as it is
scientific, it will end as it began without touching on the question of
the value of religion. In fine, it is, and would I think now be
generally admitted to be, a misconception of the function of the
science of religion to imagine that it does, or can, prove anything as
to the truth of religion, one way or the other.

There is, however, another error in the reasoning which is directed to
show that in fetichism we see what religion was and essentially is.
That error consists not only in a false conception of what religion
is,--the man who has himself no religion may be excused if he fails to
understand fully what it is,--it is based on a misunderstanding of what
fetichism is. And so confusion is doubly confounded. The source of
that misunderstanding is to be found in Bosman (Pinkerton, _Voyages and
Travels_, London, 1814, XVI, 493), who says: "I once asked a negro with
whom I could talk very freely ... how they