The scientific bases of faith / by Joseph John Murphy.

  • Murphy, Joseph John, 1827-1894.
Date:
1873
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The scientific bases of faith / by Joseph John Murphy. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    70/529 (page 22)
    The three as fully proved as the law of gravitation, this would not philoso- make it less necessary—on the contrary, it would make phizing are it more necessary—to study the logical basis of this degree historical law, the meaning of the three modes of thought mutually enumerated above, and the nature of their relations to exclusive. each other. Now it is obvious that any relation of contrast can be between two terms only. There are Contrast of two such relations to be considered : the contrast between and°l0gy Theology and Science, and that between Metaphysical science, and Inductive Science. Comte answered the questions metaphy- involved in these relations very summarily indeed ; saying sical and that Theology is false, but Science is true ; and that Meta- science. physics is worthless, but the Positive, or Inductive, method leads to true results. Comte It was not in virtue of any imaginary demonstration ttaoloW that Comte arrived at these conclusions. His contempt and meta- for all metaphysical methods of reasoning was too consis- cause only tent to permit him to make use of metaphysical reasons inductive even against metaphysics and theology. His argument, science c ^ J • \ . . throws expressed or implied throughout his whole philosophy, is tifehfacL tu^s : ^ne PlirPose °f a^ philosophy is to enable us to of the understand the facts of the universe in which we live, and of which we are part. The unvarying experience of the whole history of philosophy shows that Theology and Metaphysics are worthless for this purpose, and that Inductive Science alone avails. Theology and Meta- physics ought therefore to be cast aside, and only Induc- tive Science retained. Syllogistic This argument is syllogistic. It may be stated in the statement n n -i n ■ ±1 of his ar- f°rm °* a regular syllogism, thus :— gument. Ai] philosophy which throws no light on the facts of nature is worthless. Theology and metaphysics throw no light on the facts of nature. Therefore theology and metaphysics are worthless. Now, a syllogistic argument may be controverted by denying either of the two premises. The conclusion does not hold unless both the premises are true. In this case I admit one of the premises, but 1 do not admit the other.