seen to be misplaced.

When we pass from past to present, we must keep to the same logical
methods. In fact, we must often pass from the present to the past. It
was Lyell, the famous geologist, who established the scientific canon
that the same forces that are working to-day must be used to explain
what occurred in other ages. And this canon was of immense value, for
it prevented scientists from dreaming of catastrophes and forgetting to
study the detailed working of common forces. How far faith in Jesus as
a religious healer, a powerful prophet sent by God, led to what are
called faith-cures can be answered only by analogy from the present.
The nature and reach of mental cures must be studied with the same care
that is given to other fields. Only lately is this being done.
Physicians did not do justice to the nervous system. Their materialism
was too naive, too mechanical. The individual is an organic whole, and
the mind cannot be severed from this whole without falsity. Put in
physiological terms, the nervous system {133} controls the expenditure
of energy of the organism, and, if it is wasteful, can soon exhaust the
supply. The resistance offered by the organism to disease is, then,
likely to vary with the mental and nervous balance of the individual.
How effective an abnormal direction of nervous energy toward certain
parts of the organism may be cannot be told beforehand. Probably,
experimental work with hypnosis and psychoanalysis will throw light
upon these internal adjustments. The historian of religious history
should keep his eye upon the recent developments of psychiatry. He
should, moreover, learn his psychology from experts and not be
satisfied with the jargon of spiritualists.

But logic alone will never be able to disprove theological miracles. I
cannot prove that there are no fairies, although I can show that there
is no good evidence for belief in their existence. The rationalist who
undertakes to _demonstrate_ the impossibility of miracles forgets that
his thinking works within a set of postulates and principles which his
adversary will not accept. All he can really show is that his
postulates and principles fit in better with experience than do those
of his adversary. The final conflict is that between the primitive
view of the world and the scientific view. The best that can be done
is to stress the logical side and then make the contrast between the
two views of the world as distin