Is it true that learned people don’t believe in God?

Book review: A.G. Tabrum. Religious beliefs of modern scientists. Translation from English, ed. V.A. Kozhevnikov and N. S. Solovyov. M., 1912. In 1910, Tabrum, a member of the London League, published the answers of the most prominent English and American scientists to questions asked of them regarding the relationship between faith and science. The vast majority of respondents stated that they are believers and do not see any contradictions between scientific facts and the basic principles of Christianity. Tabrum's book was translated into Russian by the famous cultural historian and religious scholar Vladimir Aleksandrovich Kozhevnikov and Nikolai Mikhailovich Solovyov. The book had a significant influence on the scientific intelligentsia, including during Soviet times, when it was distributed in samizdat. A wise Russian proverb says that in order to get to know a person well, you need to eat three pounds of salt with him, then only you can talk bad or good about him, otherwise you can very easily tell all sorts of lies about him. But isn’t it obvious that only those who have eaten several pounds of salt during scientific pursuits have the right to speak about science and especially on behalf of science? And whoever is not familiar with science himself should listen to what others say. But in fact, how often is this seemingly so obvious and indisputable truth completely forgotten! Who has not observed the everyday phenomenon that those who are least involved in science especially like to refer to science? It can also be noted that the less a person knows, the more decisive and cheeky his references to science. Science usually appears to such people in some vague and unclear outlines. I don’t know if you, reader, but I have had to have approximately the following conversations: you hear that some semi-intellectual with a passion, a tone that does not allow doubts and objections, will say such an ordinary phrase: “Science has irrefutably proven,” - you just go ahead and ask him: – Let me ask you how science proved this? – I cannot develop the scientific principles in detail for you. I take only a ready-made scientific conclusion. This is said in a less decisive tone, but still very self-confident. - Yes? But have you seen these conclusions yourself somewhere? The interlocutor begins to feel a little embarrassed, but still answers: – Could you tell me where exactly you came across these conclusions? Which scientist? In what scientific works? The “scientist” backed to the wall does not want to tell the truth and it also seems inconvenient for him to remain silent: – I can’t tell you names now, but in general, science currently confirms this. Yes, for most of these people, who so freely refer to science, there is not science, but “science in general.” Nowhere does the ignorance of our so-called intelligentsia reach such monstrous proportions as in the field of theological knowledge, but it is precisely in this area that the boldness in referring to unknown science reaches the level of insolence and insolence. All you hear is that the Holy Scriptures are myths and fables. The way the Bible teaches about the origin of the world and man is completely unacceptable for any decent person. In science, it is known for certain and irrefutably proven that the Bible contains fairy tales, not the truth! Anyone who respects science will not believe the Bible. A belief has developed in the semi-intelligent community (if there are any convictions there!) that “in general science” of the Bible is hostile, and as time goes on, this hostility becomes more and more irreconcilable, and there is no hope for an agreement between science and the Bible at all. One can, of course, say that among Bible believers there are many people who are not alien to science. This means that they somehow reconcile their scientific knowledge with the recognition of the Bible and with faith in God. Among the hierarchs of various confessions there are also many people who stand at the height of modern scientific knowledge, but does their scientific knowledge prevent them from reverently reading the Holy Bible in the assembly of believers? Finally, how many learned theologians are there in all countries who spend their whole lives studying the Bible and do not lose faith in its Divine origin and divinely inspired dignity? But all this seems insufficient. These, they say, are people of faith, they cannot be impartial, they are not always even sincere, but the real scientists who are engaged in real science, what do they say? Do they think it is possible to believe in God and accept the Bible? This is how they argue, but no one asks such a seemingly natural question - what do representatives of modern science really say about faith and science? Why speak on their behalf? Let them speak for themselves. To prove the truth of Christianity, one member of the London League, A.G. Tabrum, listening to various atheist demagogues who include science and all scientists in their camp, set out to check whether it is true that science prevents scientists from believing in God and they all have a negative attitude towards faith, as is commonly thought and said about them. To this end, he wrote letters to English and American representatives of the natural and mathematical sciences, where he asked them to answer two questions: 1) Is there really a contradiction between the facts of science and the fundamental principles of Christianity? 2) In your life experience, have you ever known scientists who were irreligious and hostile to Christianity? Most scientists responded and allowed their answers to be published. All these answers, 134 in number, are published in Tabrum’s book “The Religious Beliefs of our Scientists” (London, 1910), which has now been translated into Russian. Among the printed letters we see letters from representatives of all kinds of scientific fields, here are presidents of the Royal Society, chemists, physicists, geologists, biologists, physiologists, philologists, orientalists, zoologists, anatomists, pathologists, botanists, anthropologists, gynecologists, psychologists, mathematicians, astronomers, electrical engineers and others. Many good thoughts were expressed by these modern representatives of positive science, but it is especially remarkable that almost no one spoke negatively about faith and no one admits that scientists are irreligious; on the contrary, almost everyone does not consider science to be contrary to faith and knows scientists who are positively religious. We will give several brief excerpts from the letters printed in the book named. Let us note, by the way, that before each letter brief information about its author is given; it is clear that the letters belong to truly learned people who are at the head of modern science; they know science and learned people not by hearsay, but because they live among science and scientists. George Stokes, Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University: “As for the claim that recent scientific research has shown that the Bible and religion are false, I will answer this directly: this view is completely false. I do not know of any sound conclusions of science that would contradict the Christian religion. Perhaps there are some wild scientific assumptions, expressed mainly by people of second-rate scientific knowledge, passed off as well-founded scientific conclusions and which, due to their properties, can cause some difficulties if these assumptions are recognized as the truth; but I will not go so far as to talk about the contradictions of science and religion to each other, since in the main parts they move on different planes and there is hardly any reason for their opposition... You ask: has my life experience given me reason to consider the greatest scientists as non-religious people? I answer: my experience not only did not lead me to this conclusion, it led me to precisely the opposite conclusion.” William Abney, President of the Astronomical and then Physical Society: “I am involved in the sciences and must, in all honesty, say that not only is there no hostility between the Bible and natural science, but that we are dealing with precisely the opposite phenomenon... Scientists are no more irreligious and no more hostile to Christianity than non-scientists. I would even say: less than the last ones. There are many leaders of science who can rightfully be called shining examples of people of the Christian type.” “If anyone claims that science and religion are opposites, and that scientists are irreligious just because they are scientists, then such a generalized statement is false.” James Geikie, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Science, University of Edinburgh: “To say that the scientists leading science are irreligious or that they are hostile to Christianity is simply ignorant absurdity. Such a statement could only have been made by some crazy talker or a zealous fanatic.” Edward Hall, Professor of Geology at the Royal College of Science: “As to the truth and reliability of the historical books of the Holy Scriptures, daily discoveries tend to confirm them. Recent research in Egypt, Palestine and other Eastern countries has shown the extent to which, even in small details, the documents of the Old Testament can be accepted with deep confidence. As for the opinion that scientists are usually skeptics and unbelievers, then, as far as I know, this statement is false. The fact that among geologists there are few skeptics, and many Christians, I can confirm on the basis of personal acquaintance with them.” Alexander Macalister, professor of anatomy at the University of Cambridge: “In my opinion, there is no conflict between science and the moral and spiritual teachings of the Bible. I think that my view is shared by many people who have devoted their entire lives to scientific research.” “And from my experience I have drawn the conviction that disbelief in Divine revelation, given in life through works, in the death and resurrection of our Savior, prevails more among those whom I dare to call the rear guard of the camp of science than among those for whom active scientific work constitutes the true task of life.” James Crichton-Brown, member of the New York Academy of Medicine, Doctor of Medicine and Doctor of Laws: “I would like to say to you: “Hold tightly to the Sermon on the Mount and do not attach any importance to the extravagance of vain and stupid secularists.” James Paget, famous surgeon and pathologist: “Among scientists you will find very few who attack both theology and religion. The attacks attributed to them come mainly from people who are very little familiar with science and use not its facts, but only the most distant conclusions from them, and such people are ready to use anything else, and from any source, just to overthrow religious beliefs.” Dice Duckworth, MD: “Don’t upset yourself because of the atheists! There are too many weak, vain and ignorant talkers in the world! You may be sure that the majority of the best and most candid scientists find no difficulty in reconciling the Christian religion with the continuous additions to science, any more than they consider the Bible as a stumbling block to the acceptance of new points of view on old truths... The only solution to all our difficulties is, in my opinion, to maintain in ourselves a humble and childlike faith and a trusting trust in the perfect love of God... The happiest of the living and the happiest of the dying those who firmly hold this faith... I do not hesitate to say that I am a convinced Christian, and I think I have reason to say that most of my professional colleagues in England probably hold the same faith.” Heinrich Weinel, professor: “Bebel and Haeckel for our century and its interests are relics of the 70s of the past, the 19th century. They are not the leaders of the now living, now working generation. Science is becoming more cautious and restrained and has a stronger sense of its limitations. She knows that the claim to solve the world's mysteries with her resources alone is nothing more than an echo of youthful enthusiasm; and only our half-educated public, who founded the “League of Monists” two years ago, now listens to this kind of tunes.” George Carpenter, Professor of Zoology at the Royal College of Science in Dublin: “Many of my learned friends are known to me as devout Christians. Those who are not, turn away from him sadly and reluctantly, more likely reminiscent of the evangelical “rich young man” than a truly irreligious person. He who desires to do the will of Christ will come to know His teaching. Personal experience, experiencing the saving and helping power of Christ in oneself is the highest testimony of Him.” George Boulger, professor of botany and geology: “You refer to a lecturer who said that learned Christians do not exist at the present time. This is a lie, a monstrous lie! If the one who expressed it, before asserting anything like that, had done what he was obliged to do, that is, had taken care to make even the slightest inquiries, he himself would have known that it was a lie.” Alexander Simpson, Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics at the University of Edinburgh: “Men of science can be Christians; may not be; their judgments are valuable within the limits of their competence. But God is not known through a telescope or a microscope, and, fortunately for the leaders of science, many of them at all times achieved knowledge of God through faith.” Dr. Eduard Walter Maunder, astronomer: “There is no antagonism between the established facts of science and the fundamental teachings of Christianity, and it is only too well known that both now and in the past many of the most eminent men of science were ardent believers... A child, just like a sage, can comprehend the first commandment of religion: “I believe in God the Father, who created me and the whole world.” The truth expressed in these words or in the first lines of the book of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1) is the foundation of all science, as well as all religion.” Edward Divers, emeritus professor of chemistry: “Except in the sphere of so-called public knowledge, scientific research, as far as I know, has never dared to show, much less succeed in proving, the falsity of the Bible. It is unlikely that there will be at least one outstanding scientist who would allow himself to express himself in such a way about the Bible.” Dr. William John Holland, eminent American naturalist: “One should hardly pay attention to the opinions of people who declare that modern scientific research has revealed errors in the Bible and religion, and that influential representatives of science are irreligious and hostile to Christianity. Both of these positions are incorrect, as is quite clear to anyone familiar with the scientific world... What is true and true in science does not contradict what is true in religion... It seems to me that I have had the good fortune to have a wide acquaintance with scientists from all countries, and I am well aware that the vast majority of my acquaintances in the scientific circle are reverent and pious people, who do not see in the facts of science anything that interferes with their faith in the presence of a Higher Power guiding us to righteousness, the Power in which we live, move and exist... I consider talk about the conflict between science and religion to be empty chatter. When a person indulges in such chatter, I am always sure that he either does not understand what science is, or is devoid of understanding the basic teachings of true religion. Already from these few samples, I hope it is clear what interesting and important material Tabrum’s book contains. While reading this book from its first page to the last, before the mind's eye, a long line of self-sacrificing true representatives of modern science, crowned with many academic degrees and diplomas, pass by the authors of thousands of highly learned works, and all of them renounce not faith, but unbelief, all of them are indignant at the unfair slander that they are irreligious, the slander that is so readily taken up by countless agitators of unbelief, decisive in judgment and completely unceremonious in choosing weapons against faith. Tabrum's book can open everyone's eyes to the actual state of affairs. She definitely and completely convincingly tells her reader: “It is not true that learned people do not believe in God! Whoever says the opposite either knows nothing, or is deliberately lying, covering up his unbelief with that kind of erudition that is so inappropriate for him! Our theologians have always used the names of great scientists who combined with science deep faith and reverence for the Creator of the universe; but these names were few, and these names belong to times long past. After all, they mostly talked about Linnaeus and Kepler. It might seem as if the combination of faith and scientific knowledge in one person was possible only in the good old days. Tabrum's book clearly shows that even today this connection is not an exception, but a very common occurrence. Tabrum's book talks about English and American scientists, but there are books where similar material is collected about scientists from other countries. These are: Kneller. Das Christentum und die Vertreter der neueren Naturwissenschaft. 2. Aufl. Freiburg i. V., 1904. (Kneller. Christianity and representatives of modern natural science) and Dennert. Die Religion der Naturforscher. 7. Aufl. Berlin, 1908 (Dennert. Religion of the Natural Scientists 1). Unfortunately, these books have not yet been translated into Russian, but the result that Kneller and Dennert arrive at is not much different from the results of Tabrum. That is why we strongly recommend Tabrum’s book to everyone who has to hear speeches about the contradiction between science and faith and who are confused by these empty speeches. We cannot help but wish Tabrum’s book the widest possible distribution in our Russian society. After all, Russian society, more than any other, knows about science from hearsay from some “Messengers of Knowledge,” where “knowledge” on almost every page turns into bare, and often unscrupulous, ignorance (the latter especially when it comes to religion). The prejudice about the contradiction between religion and science is therefore very widespread among us. Perhaps someone, after reading Tabrum’s book, will abandon this unfounded prejudice. Tabrum's book may also have some significance for a believer with a simple heart. We declare clearly and definitely that, in our opinion, faith does not in the least depend on what some sir, lord or mister may please to say about it. A simple believer monk is a greater authority for us than a doctor of all sciences who does not know the faith and does not belong to the Orthodox Church. The translators say the same thing in the preface to the Russian edition. “We are convinced that the truth of Christianity, as well as religion in general, is essentially not based on the conclusions of science. Religious truth is an original truth, independent of either philosophy or natural science.” But from Tabrum’s book, the believer will take a reconciled view of modern science, for he will see with his own eyes that the true creators of accurate knowledge, by virtue of their reverent attitude towards truth alone, carry within themselves the rudiments of a religious principle, understand the meaning and greatness of religion, as well as its independent rights and powers. In addition, on the basis of the book of Tabrum, every believer can safely demand all sorts of impudent unbeliefs to answer when they refer to science alien to them and scientists unknown to them. Absolutely rightly writes S.L. Drowbridge, Chairman of the North London League for Proving the Truth of Christianity, in the introduction to Tabrum's book: “Everyone has every right to expect and every one is obliged to demand from his uncalled, imposed teachers, “rationalists”, “freethinkers” or others - by whatever name they call themselves - that they will produce at least some evidence of the propositions they express. Those who elevate themselves to the rank of mentors and teachers of society act unwisely if they forget this duty to such an extent that they offer, without any justification, exclusively dogmatically expressed statements in place of factual evidence. That is why once again I would like to wish Tabrum’s book the widest possible distribution. In conclusion, one small observation. In recent years, our book market has been enriched with many translated books, in particular on religious and philosophical issues. There are books in defense of religion, like Tabrum’s book, but there are also many books hostile to faith. It is obvious that the first are translated by people devoted to the faith; the latter are enemies of faith. I take the first books of the second kind that come my way - the works of Ernest Renan, published by N. Glagolev. Who translated them? M.A. Engelhardt, E.A. Serebryakov, V.A. Obruchev, M.A. Shishmareva, Z.N. Zhuravskaya. Who are they? I don’t know, but judging by the translation, people are completely ignorant. There is literally not a single page without gross errors. It is simply impossible to read these translations without laughing. At every step you encounter brilliant evidence of the boundless ignorance of translators. Let us take the book of Tabrum, written in defense of the faith. The names of its venerable translators V.A. Kozhevnikov and N.M. Solovyov, it seems, do not need any recommendation for anyone who is at all familiar with modern religious and philosophical scientific literature. Yes, from the translation itself it is clear that truly enlightened people are translating. The translation is excellent and error-free. Isn’t it obvious that here in Russia negative books are translated by ignoramuses, while enlightened and highly educated people give us books in defense of the faith? The work of the German professor E. Dennert “Die Religion der Naturforscher” after writing this review was also published in Russian. – Religious views of natural scientists. Kharkov, 1912. Dennert cited the evidence of 423 naturalists and doctors from ancient times to modern times. It turned out that 349 of them are unconditional believers, 18 are indifferent to religion and only 9 are atheists. – Approx. ed. You might be interested in: