Motes and Beams by J. A. L. Derby

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park, Washington, D. C. · Aug 29, 1912

Motes and Beams

By J. A. L. Derby

J. A. L. Derby

There is a notion in the realm of "scientific" thought, absurd, but none the less vicious, which persuades the "scientific" doubter that what the Christian calls Christian evidences are not worth notice. But this attitude is not the result of either scientific analysis or candor. It is an attitude assumed for the most unscientific of reasons—prejudice and ignorance.

These may be strong words, but they are used advisedly. It did not require a citizen of the United States to write the best analysis of our government ever given. The present English ambassador to this country, author of "The American Commonwealth," is the man who has produced the work. It was a favorite observation of the shrewd Lord Bacon that the lookers-on often see more than the players. The writer has spent about twenty years in looking on the game of modern scientific method, and he has yet to find a scientist who attacks Christianity or the Bible in a scientific manner. Does popular science consider the evidences of the inspiration, the genuineness, or the authenticity of the Scriptures?—Not a whit. Does it listen to the witnesses for the defense?—

Not at all. It falls back on its "scientific" concept,—the reign of law, etc.,—calls the witnesses for the prosecution, and declares the case settled beyond controversy; no further evidence necessary.

Possibly there are some extenuating circumstances which may help to account for this high-handed procedure. Many good persons really give occasion to the scientist for taking such an attitude. Too often he is given to understand that religion has nothing to do with evidences. "Faith," says this religionist, "is the great key." Then faith is defined as believing something without evidence.

Amusing it would be, were it not so serious, the artless way in which many excellent persons believe with equal strength of conviction notions utterly antagonistic. To-day I hammer the unbeliever with evidences. In dealing tomorrow with the scientist who demands evidences, I assure him that the transcendent truths of religion ignore such unworthy props to faith. There is a kink here that needs untwisting. Let us not too severely condemn the scientist for irrationality, until we determine to be reasonable ourselves. Let us not require him to reject evidences, and then blame him for so doing.

The fact is, the definition of faith implied above is false. Faith is not believing without evidence. It is not credulous acceptance of hearsay or tradition. It is not believing what I want to believe because I like to believe it. Believing a thing ever so sincerely will not make it true. Arbitrary esteem for any opinion is but a gloss for superstition. To accept without evidence is an easy way to gull one's self.

The inspiration of the Bible and the truth of Christianity rest on irrefutable evidences. "He that cometh to God must believe that he is;" aye, truly, but not of necessity without evidence. In the face of prophecy fulfilled, atheism is dumb. This, indeed, is the very principle that God himself lays down by which to test his existence. Read Isa. 41:21-27; 42:9; 44:7, 8; 46:9-11. "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord." Isa. 1:18. "Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you." 1 Peter 3:15.

Having settled this definition with our scientific friend, let us invite him to use his reason in precisely the same way he does in his scientific investigations. Does he decide on the law of gravitation, pronouncing it false because a balloon flies away from the earth? or does he rather scrutinize his evidences to see whether this isolated fact does not fall under a more comprehensive law? It may not appear scientifically reasonable in itself, as a bald assertion unsupported by evidence, that Elisha raised a man from the dead or made an iron ax float. But if I find that a person of infinite knowledge and unquestionable truth of character accepted as divinely inspired the book that contains those statements, I am compelled by the integrity of reason

itself to accept as true not only those assertions but every other assertion in the book. Its inherent reasonableness when taken as an isolated fact, has nothing to do with the matter. The greater includes the less.

The individual is not condemned because he refuses to believe blindly. He is condemned for stubborn unreasonableness,—because he determines to follow his love for sin rather than the admonition of conscience,—reason in its coercive aspect.

Lodi, Cal.