How Can Physical Science Aid in the Teaching of Religion?

IMPROVEMENT ERA Vol. XXVI JANUARY, 1923 No. 3 How Can Physical Science Aid in the Teaching of Religion?* By Dr. Jos. F. Merrill, Dean of the School of Engineering of the University of Utah This question assumes that physical science may aid in teaching religion. If this assumption is correct, and I think it is, it follows that the study of physical science, which includes chemistry, physics, mineralogy, geology, etc., does not destroy religious faith as it is popularly assumed to do. This popular assumption has arisen perhaps because some students of physical science are non religious. But some students in every field of human thought are also non-religious. And so are some persons who are not students at all. Is it not then almost gratuitous assumption to say that the study of physical science — in fact any science — makes infidels, when the propor- tion of such unfortunate individuals among scientific students is perhaps no greater than it is among any other class of students or people? But the popular mind is given to making gratuitous assumptions. It is for this reason that too much dependence should njot be placed upon popular beliefs. The cautious will examine them to see that they are not built upon the sand. "Truth is truth wherever found, on heathen or on Christian ground.*' The aim of science is the discovery of truth. If religion is true, or rather, if your religious doctrines are true, then real *Delivered before a recent Latter-day Saint School Convention, Salt Lake City, and endorsed by the science instructors of that institution. Entered at the Past Office, Salt Lake City, Utah, as second class matter. Ac- ceptance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 3, 1917, authorized on July 2, 1018, $2 per annum. Address Room 406 Church Office Building, Salt Lake City, Utah.

222 IMPROVEMENT ERA science can never do aught but support these doctrines. For truth can never be in conflict with itself. This obvious fact is often forgotten or ignored by those who assume that there is some conflict between science and religion. Needless to say, perhaps, that there may be real conflicts between what one may think science teaches and what one may believe are religious truths. But this difficulty lies in an im- perfect understanding or in sheer ignoranve of both scientific and religious truth, that is, truth revealed by science or by religion. And the existence of this difficulty is not sufficient reason why science should not be studied. Is not infidelity itself due to a lack of correct understanding? And does not misunderstanding begin the moment one begins to observe and to think? If we are to aivoid the liability of misunderstanding and, therefore, the danger of infidelity, it wfould seem that one must never cultivate reason and intelligence. Then what about the doctrine that the "Glory of God is intelligence" and that his children should strive toward perfection? Every rational mind believes, of course, in education. But the point I wish to make clear is that the process of education is attendant with the danger of a misunderstanding of truth, and this misunderstanding may be detrimental to the development of religious faith. But if one's reason were not developed neither could there be developed a satisfactory religious faith. To be acceptable, worship must be intelligent. Hence, education must go on even though some individuals are lost by the process. All would be lost in ignorance. Now to come to the specific question of how physical science may aid in the teaching of religion, may I say that I shall deal mostly, though not entirely, with Physics, that branch of physic- al science with which I am best acquainted. Science teaches that the physical universe, as we perceive it with our senses, is made up of two entities — matter and energy — and that both are indestructible. Through a hundred years of experimentation, beginning with the eighteenth century, the Conservation of Matter and Energy has been established as the foundation stones of all scientific thought. Many processes are known, of course, of changing both matter and energy in form, but none are kown of changing the amount of either. Extinc- tion is not known in science, only change. This great fundamental truth struggled for many years be- fore its light became all-pervading. Even now its brilliance is not sufficient sometimes to light our understandings with its significance. Every now and then some individual comes to me with a "perpetual motion device." And frequently some promoters

PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND RELIGION 223 through ignorance or otherwise, deceive the uninformed with schemes that can never work because they are in conflict with the great truth that Nature never gives something for nothing. She is always just, giving an exact equivalent, but nothing more. This is conservation of energy. And in this fact, revealed by science, is a great truth of the utmost value in the teaching of sound morality. Never some- thing for nothing, only an exact equivalent. Where in all the universe is found a better example of pure hionesty, of simple justice? And Nature reveals God's ways, for God is the author of Nature. To be honest, to be just, is, then, to be God-like. Do we not teach religion, then, when we teach these God-like virtues? And how perfect does science show Nature to be in these respects! But in the doctrine of the Conservation of Matter and Energy we find the greatest support for the doctrine of the im- mortality of the soul. Ordinary gross matter, the elements that make up the substance of all common things, even the dust of the earth, cannot be destroyed. It is eternal. It may be de- stroyed in form. It may pass from a solid into a gas, from the visible to the invisible, it may go from one body to another and continue a ceaseless course of change, but the amount remains the same. This is not a supposition or a theory. It is a demon- strated fact, established by innumerable trustworthy experiments. To be sure, there have been times when even eminent ex- perimenters have made observations that seemed to overthrow this venerable doctrine of observation. In our own day, for example, the behavior of radium led some physicians to believe that at last an exception to the doctrine had been discovered. And an eminent scientist in California, a few years ago, pub- lished some data that led him to suspect that probably he, too, had discovered a case in which there was some disappearance of matter. But careful investigations have in all casies brought apparent exceptions into harmony with the doctrine that mat- ter cannot be destroyed. So that today this doctrine stands se- cure, firmly established in the minds of all authorities. Yet to the layman this truth seems wonderful. But he can- not disbelieve it. He has confidence in the skill of the experts, and in the accuracy of their delicate methods of experimenta- tion. He accepts their conclusions, though to his untutored eyes the results seem different. The other entity that helps to make up our physical uni- verse, energy, is also indestructible by any process known by man. It may be more elusive, more difficult to follow in its ceaseless course than matter, but the deft fingers and the trained eye of the scientist have followed it and the doctrine of the

224 IMPROVEMENT ERA conservation of energy has in consequence become the unshake- able foundation upon which scientists and engineers all build. It is at once apparent that this doctrine of conservation sup- ports the idea of the immortality of the spirit. Of what is a spirit composed? The scientist cannot tell you. He may say the spirit is the intelligent part of a human being. Does it die when the body dies? He does not know, for as yet he has found no reliable means of experimentation. He will tell you that we have now come to the realm of belief. However, Sir Oliver Lodge, an eminent English physicist, and others have in recent years been trying to extend the methods of experiment into the realm of spirit with the result that they have convinced themselves of the existence of spirits. Their methods and con- clusions, however, have not as yet been generally accepted by scientists as valid. Again, Lord Kelvin, one of the foremost scientists that ever lived, was once led to examine some so-called manifestations of spirits through certain mediums. He said frankly, that he could not explain what he saw. After making such investigations as were feasible, other scientists haive said the same thing. There are many forms of so-called spiritual manifestations that scientists cannot yet explain. But from the conservative scien- tific view-point it is only fair to say the existence of spirits is not yet satisfactorily demonstrated. But is it not reasonable to believe in the existence of spirits? Can it be that the gross matter making up the physical body is eternal, and the spirit, the intelligent part of the body, is perish- able? Is not such an idea absurd? Of course, to honest dis- believers in immortality the idea is not absurd. But to many it appears just as easy and just as reasonable to believe in the conservation of intelligence, of spirit, as it does in the conserva- tion of gross matter. To all such a fundamental doctrine of science will serve as a powerful means of teaching a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. At this point let me call attention to the attitude of a very small class of persons who assume an air of superior intelligence and sneer at the childishness of a belief in a personal God and in immortality. They prate about the certainties of science and speak as if they knew the universe and all things therein. To their minds practically all truth has been revealed by science and there is no place for God. There is, indeed, no need for God, for the universe operates in accordance with unchanging natural law. Their attitude bespeaks a knowledge that is definite, de- void of difficulties, and free from demands upon faith. Since all is known there is no room for a belief in things divine.

PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND RELIGION 225 Let us exiamine their claims in a few particulars. Ask your- selves in what respects science has advanced during recent times. Thirty years ago these know-alls would have laughed in your face had you told them that wireless communication would shortly attain the development it has lachieved today. With an air of superior wisdom they would have pointed out to you the impossibility of such an accomplishment. Twenty -five years ago they would have smiled at your dream of transcontinental flights by heavier-than-tair flying machines. Further, in those days all chemistry books taught that atoms were invisible units of matter and that transmutation of one elemtent into that of another was an impossibility. Today the atom is regarded as a highly complex individual which in some cases, as radium, is undergoing continuous, spontaneous decomposition, atoms of lead and helium being by-products. Only twenty-five yetars ago a physicist of international re- nown told a class of which I was a member that all the great facts of nature had been discovered. But since then a new science — Radio-activity — has been developed out of the special field in which he was one of the foremost world authorities! Many other illustrations might be given of the rapid advances in recent times of our knowledge of Nature. Yes, and Nature probably has yet many marvelous things to reveal. Further, science asks us to accept many things on faith. The nature of Light, defined as the external cause of the sensation of sight, is now well known. Experiment proves that it is a phenomenon of wave-motion of the transverse type. Now, a wave-motion has its origin in a source that oscillates, swings to and fro. In the case of ordinary light science asks us to believe that this to and fro movement goes at the rate of at least one thousand trillion oscillations per second. In the casie of X-rays this rate is a thousand times greater. Of course, this rate is absolutely inconceivably rapid. Light is a wave-motion, but there can be no wave-motion without a medium. Wireless communication is also accom- plished by a wave-motion in the same medium. And since these waves pass through ordinary solid mlatter, as glass and brick, thia medium is all pervading and is called "the ether." This medium, so we are asked to believe, is in all and through all things. However, besides its existence, we know very little about it. But we are asked to believe that it is imponderable and acts as a perfect fluid so far as the movement of the earth and all heavenly bodies are concerned. While in the transmission of light, heat, and radio waves, it acts like a perfect 9olid. So science presents us with an all pervading, imponderable

226 IMPROVEMENT ERA medium, not subject to the laws of gross matter, that is at once a perfect solid and a perfect fluid. Is it not taxing our imagina- tions to picture a medium that at one and the same instant is both the most fluid and the most solid substance known? Is not the existence of spirit at least as easy to understand as this ether of science? And when we know all about the ether, it is reasonable to believe we shall know all about the immortal spirit of man. In some other respects science makes demands upon the im- agination far beyond human power of conception. The immen- sity of space cannot be conceived. The nearest fixed star is more than three light-years away, that is, light traveling at the rate that encircles the globe seven times per second, requires three years to reach us from this star. The most distant visible stars are thousands of light-years away. Imagine the stars of heaven being blotted out this moment. Their light would contin- ue to besparkle the starry firament from three to thousands of years in the future. Our north star would shine on during forty three years to come. The human mind cannot compass such magnitudes. They approximate the infinite in size. On the other hand, we are taken in the opposite direction to the realm of the infinitesimal. A gas is a substance made up of molecules which, under normal conditions, are relatively far apart, that is, the spaces between them are great compared to the size of the molecules. The molecules are composed of atoms which, in turn, are complex structures, made up of parts, electrons being among these parts. In one cubic centimeter of this gas, about the volume of an ordinary thimble, there are, we are told, 270 million billion molecules. It is impossible to conceive of the minuteness of a molecule, much less that of an electron. Did you ever observe the rare beauty and crystalline delicacy of a snow flake? How came it that a myriad of tiny molecules of vapor fashioned a form so perfect, acting as if they were endowed with super-intelligence? Science can only tell us that it is their nature to do this. We are here compelled to believe in the existence of minute forces that we do not understand. And so it is throughout the great realm of crystalline structure in Na- ture. Again, we know much about the conditions that are favor- able to the growth of a tiny blade of grass, but we know very little about the inward forces that produce this growth. We can create the conditions, but not the forces of growth. Life as yet is a great mystery that science cannot explain. The use of the magnetic compass has for centuries ma4e

PHYSICAL SCIENCE AND RELIGION 227 possible the sailing of mighty oceans. In raging storms during the blackest nights this little instrument has long safely guided the mariner in his course. It functions because it possesses magnetism. And what is magnetism? No man can tell. Of its existence he is certain. Its nature is a mystery to him. Further, the compass functions because the earth itself is a great mag- net. And what is the cause of the earth's magetism? The ques- tions is as much of an enigma today as it ever was. It is needless to multiply instances to illustrate the fact that science is not yet able to solve all the mysteries of Nature. It still demands of us a large measure of faith. But we do not refuse to believe in science because it cannot explain all things to our understanding. Neither do we reject science because, per- chance, we may not understand its teaching or comprehend its magnitudes. When a student has difficulty with his mathematics he blames his own stupidity and does not question the validity of the mathematical conclusion. Now, may we not carry over to the study of religion the same attitude that the student assumes toward the study of mathe- matics and science? This is the attitude of the open mind and of faith. He sees that it is the reasonable, logical attitude — the only one that will get him anywhere in his study of science. Hence, the study of science should be extremely helpful in get- ting the student to approach rightfully the study of religion. If he goes far into the study of science he will probably find that a faith in religion is no more taxing to the imagination than is a faith in scientific theories. Furthermore, the basis of a religious faith lies in human experience, the same as does ia faith in science. Further, the scientific study of Nature reveals a universe that is orderly and governed by law. Whether an examination is made with a telescope, a microscope, a test-tube, or what not, the same characteristic of order, of effect certainly following cause, will be observed. Not the slightest evidence of chance of chaos, will be seen anywhere. "The music of the spheres" is not poetic license, it is the actual harmony of Nature. Does not all this irresistibly lead to the conclusion that there exists an om- nipotent, omniscient Creator? How sadly distorted the vision that sees in all this matchless harmony only chance as the govern- ing cause! Physical science can aid in the teaching of religion because it developes the right attitude of mind, reveals the minuteness and the immensity of creation and, therefore, the greatness of God, shows the permanence of even gross entities, making a belief in immortality logical, and makes known a universe where law and justice reign supreme.