Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 9.djvu/131

Rh arts of life, it cannot be denied that the mediæval Mussulmans had reached a higher plane of material comfort than their Christian contemporaries. In short, the work of all kinds done by these people would furnish the judicious advocate of the claims of the Semitic race with materials for a pleasing and instructive picture."

Very well; these are facts of some importance, but who had brought them out for public appreciation before Dr. Draper published his "History of the Intellectual Development of Europe?" And, although Mr. Fiske may differ from him in regard to the historical import of Arabian science, we fail to see any occasion for the indulgence of sneering and disparagement.

And now in regard to the "Conflict." The theologians of all ilks, who have taken up Dr. Draper's recent book, are agreed that it is a piece of futility because there is really no such conflict as that of which he pretends to have given the history. Messrs. Brownson, Hill, Washburn, Deems, and Co., are vehement in asserting the groundlessness and absurdity of Dr. Draper's assumption; and now, as if he had been sitting under the droppings of the Hippodrome, Mr. Fiske cordially acquiesces in the ardent views of these gentlemen. He says of Dr. Draper: "When he enlarges on the trite story of Galileo and alludes to the more modern quarrel between the Church and geologists, and does this in the belief that he is thereby illustrating an antagonism between Religion and Science, it is obvious that he identifies the cause of the antigeologists and the persecutors of Galileo with the cause of Religion. The word 'religion' is to him a symbol which stands for unenlightened bigotry or narrow-minded unwillingness to look facts in the face. . . . It is, nevertheless, a very superficial conception, and no book which is vitiated by it can have much philosophic value. . . . Since, then, the scientific innovator does not, either voluntarily or involuntarily, attack religion, it follows that there can be no such 'conflict' as that of which Dr. Draper has undertaken to write the history. The real contest is between one phase of science and another." This will hardly do. Mr. Fiske says that no book vitiated by this superficial conception can have much philosophic value. But, in the "First Principles" of Herbert Spencer, on page 11, we read:

Mr. Spencer, of course, holds to the possibility of an ultimate reconciliation between Religion and Science, but he does not commit the folly of denying their past and present antagonism. Dr. Draper has made no attempt to deal with the philosophy of the subject, and he is not to be judged by that standard. Assuming, as Spencer has done, that it is a fact, and a fact of vast significance, he is the first to have given us its history; and, whatever opinion may be entertained regarding the manner of its execution, he had a valid theme, and deals with veritable phenomena. And, had his manner of doing the work been more open to attack, we should probably have heard a good deal less about the baselessness of the antagonism which he has described.

The point of contention is as to what constitutes religion. Dr. Draper was justified in taking the term in its current significance as comprehending the general doctrines and policy of religious organizations. That sects differ, and eat each other up in their denials of dogmas, was nothing to him. And, though they should all agree at last as to what religion is, and discredit the total affirmations of past theology, the historical aspects of the case will remain the same. He was not called upon to settle sectarian disputes, or to find out that denomination which possesses the true faith. Mr. Fiske complains of him for not defining this element of his thesis, and he proceeds to do it; himself, as follows: "All animals seek for fullness of life; but in civilized man this craving has acquired a moral significance, and has become a spiritual