t is for the 'science of religions'
to tell us just which hypotheses these are. Meanwhile the freest
competition of the various faiths with one another, and their openest
application to life by their several champions, are the most favorable
conditions under which the survival of the fittest can proceed. They
ought therefore not to lie hid each under its bushel, indulged-in
quietly with friends. They ought to live in publicity, vying with each
other; and it seems to me that (the regime of tolerance once granted,
and a fair field shown) the scientist has nothing to fear for his own
interests from the liveliest possible state of fermentation in the
religious world of his time. Those faiths will best stand the test
which adopt also his hypotheses, and make them integral elements of
their own. He should welcome therefore every species of religious
agitation and discussion, so long as he is willing to allow that some
religious hypothesis _may_ be {xiii} true. Of course there are plenty
of scientists who would deny that dogmatically, maintaining that
science has already ruled all possible religious hypotheses out of
court. Such scientists ought, I agree, to aim at imposing privacy on
religious faiths, the public manifestation of which could only be a
nuisance in their eyes. With all such scientists, as well as with
their allies outside of science, my quarrel openly lies; and I hope
that my book may do something to persuade the reader of their crudity,
and range him on my side. Religious fermentation is always a symptom
of the intellectual vigor of a society; and it is only when they forget
that they are hypotheses and put on rationalistic and authoritative
pretensions, that our faiths do harm. The most interesting and
valuable things about a man are his ideals and over-beliefs. The same
is true of nations and historic epochs; and the excesses of which the
particular individuals and epochs are guilty are compensated in the
total, and become profitable to mankind in the long run.

The essay 'On some Hegelisms' doubtless needs an apology for the
superficiality with which it treats a serious subject. It was written
as a squib, to be read in a college-seminary in Hegel's logic, several
of whose members, mature men, were devout champions of the dialectical
method. My blows therefore were aimed almost entirely at that. I
reprint the paper here (albeit with some misgivings), partly because I
believe the dialectical meth