God Arises
The Method of Argument
~ 96 ~
If this line of reasoning is considered valid enough
to bear out organic evolution as a fact, the same
formula could well be used to establish religion as a
fact. The parallel being evident, it seems
paradoxical that scientists should accept organic
evolution as a fact, while rejecting religion as
having no basis in fact. It is evident that their
findings relate, not to the method or argument, but
to the conclusion. If something, of a purely physical
nature, is proved by the method of logical
positivism, it is immediately accepted by scientists.
But if anything of a spiritual nature is so proved; it
is rejected out of hand, for no better reason than
that this conclusion throws them into a state of
mental disarray. It does not fit in with their
preconceived ideas! The case of the modern age
versus religion is, strictly speaking that of
predisposition, and not that of particular scientific
reasoning.
From the above discussion, it becomes quite clear
that it is not proper to regard religion, on the one
hand, as being based on faith in the unseen, and
treat science, on the other hand, as being based on
observation. It must be admitted that science, no
