Bernard Lightman

The "Conflict Thesis" and Scientific Naturalism

Lightman Bernard - York University (Toronto, Canada). lightman@yorku.ca

The zoologist Thomas Henry Huxley, along with his friends, physicist John Tyndall and evolutionist philosopher Herbert Spencer have been central to all accounts of the history of science-religion relationships in the 19th century. Before 1970s, when the "conflict thesis" widely dominated, these "scientific naturalists" were presented as heroes of science, courageous defenders of the theory of evolution from the assaults of Christian reactionaries. However, from 1970s on, the historians started to question the "conflict thesis", and a new, "complexity thesis" has been formulated. The real position of Huxley and his colleagues turned out to be unclear in this new historiographic perspective: can we extend the "complexity thesis" to their thought? This paper is trying to find an uneasy answer to this question.

Keywords: Thomas Henry Huxley, John Tyndall, Herbert Spencer, evolution, conflict thesis, complexity thesis, natural theology, theodicy, eschatology, James Moore, Frank Turner, Geoffrey Cantor.

I would like to express my gratitude to Chris Stewart and the Templeton Religion Trust, who provided this work with a grant. I would like to thank Jeffrey Kantor for his critical comments and suggestions for improving the text. I would also like to thank the scientists whose work is discussed in this article for their deep and stimulating insights, as well as for their friendly attitude: in particular, I would like to thank Ruth Barton, Peter Bowler, John Brook, Govan Dawson, Jim Endersby, James R. Moore, Elizabeth Naswald, Ron Nambers, Matt Stanley, To Frank Turner and Paul White.

page 11
THE articles of Darwin's loyal "hellhound," the bully Thomas Henry Huxley, have provided scientists with a stock of memorable quotes since the late nineteenth century. Most of the texts were written during the period when the biologist was engaged in a polemic with conservative Christians: the liberal politician W. Gladstone, Bishop Henry Wace, and the conservative A. Balfour. Summing up the results of past disputes between scientists and theologians, Huxley once stated:: "Theologians who have lost their power lie about the cradle of all science, like strangled snakes near the cradle of Hercules. History shows that whenever science and orthodoxy met in a fair battle, Orthodoxy always had to leave the battlefield bleeding and slain, if not destroyed; overthrown, if not killed."1. This image is a kind of short expression of the "conflict thesis": it highlights the supposed confrontation between science and religious orthodoxy throughout history and predicts the ultimate victory of science. In a fair fight, according to Huxley, it is science that always comes out victorious after a bloody battle with the enemy.

Huxley's description of the historical relationship between science and religion goes back to the story of Hercules in Greek mythology. Hercules was the son of Zeus and Alcmene, wife of Amphitryon, a Greek warrior and heir to the throne of Tiryns. Zeus tricked Alcmene into spending the night with him, appearing to her once in the guise of her husband. Hera, the wife of Zeus, was fiercely jealous of his mistresses and illegitimate children. She tried to kill baby Hercules by throwing two venomous snakes into the cradle. By strangling the reptiles, Hercules thwarted Hera's plans. However, Hera did not give up; all her life she pursued Hercules. As in the center of English education in the XIX century. There were ancient languages and ancient literature, and the story of Hercules was familiar to most of Huxley's readers. By personifying science in the image of Hercules, Huxley presented every scientist as a hero persecuted by religious orthodoxy. In turn, religious orthodoxy is personified in the image of Hera, the persecutor of Hercules. This is a jealous, vengeful and powerful goddess who viciously attempted on the life of an infant. Although Huxley's personifications of science and religious orthodoxy are based on Greek mythology, he might just as well have turned to the well-known Bible.

1. Huxley, T. H. (1899) Darwiniana, p. 52. Macmillan & Co.

page 12
Plot: the temptation of Eve by the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Theologians depicted as serpents are deadly deceivers. Educated readers, as well as scientists, immediately understood Huxley's derogatory allusions to theologians.

Along with his friends, the physicist John Tyndall and the evolutionary philosopher Herbert Spencer, Huxley has always been a central figure in any description of the relationship between science and religion in the nineteenth century. Until the nineteen-seventies, when the "conflict thesis" was widely used, researchers saw them as scientific heroes who fiercely defended Darwin against the attacks of ideological Christian anti-evolutionists. The debate about the validity of the theory of evolution between Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce at the 1860 meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Oxford became an almost mythical event, symbolizing the "conflict thesis". Similarly, Tyndall's" Belfast Speech", delivered in 1874 when he was president of the British Association, was perceived as an example of the radical materialism of scientists grouped around Darwin. Herbert Spencer's System of Synthetic Philosophy (1862-1896), an ambitious multi - volume work based on the principles of the theory of evolution, was interpreted as an attempt to replace Christianity with a new, secular worldview. If the history of the relationship between science and religion in the nineteenth century were to be built entirely around conflict, characters such as Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer would be essential to its presentation. Representatives of the Christian worldview needed an enemy to start a war.

Beginning in the seventies, researchers in British science and religion began to question the validity of the "conflict thesis." In their opinion, it was too categorical and implied a wrong idea of both science and religion. In any case, the specific place of Huxley and his colleagues in this new historiographical perspective was unclear. Did the transition to the "complexity thesis" apply to them, or should they still be considered as adherents of conflict? In this article, I will analyze the complex answer to this question that has been proposed by many researchers from the seventies of the last century to the present day. Indeed, we were forced not only to take a fresh look at the role of Huxley and his allies in the light of a new approach to the situation of the nineteenth century, but also to take a fundamental approach.

page 13
Therefore, we should reconsider our own understanding of this situation. One of the most striking results was the revival of the conflict thesis, albeit in a new form.

When the"conflict thesis"reigned supreme

One of the first critical analyses of the applicability of the "conflict thesis" to the nineteenth century was presented by James R. Moore in his Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle for Reconciliation with Darwin in Britain and America, 1870-1900 (1979)2. In the preface, Moore writes: "For a hundred years, it has been fashionable to use military metaphors to describe the religious debate surrounding the theory of evolution in the late nineteenth century. This historiography of "conflict" and "struggle" implied the positivist assumption that science and metaphysics, the theory of evolution and Christian theology, can or should be divorced. " 3 In the opening chapters of his book, Moore traces the origins of the" conflict thesis "to two influential American works: John William Draper's History of the Conflict between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dixon White's History of the Struggle between Science and Theology in Christendom (1896). Moore goes on to trace the continuing influence of the "conflict thesis" in scientific and religious literature up to the seventies of the twentieth century. At the end of the book, Moore states that a study of the position of Protestant polemicists in Britain and America has shown that members of two influential groups, the Christian Darwinists and the Christian Darwinists, have accepted the theory of evolution. While the first group, mainly liberal Christians, were forced to modify the theory in order to align it with Christian theology, the second group, mostly Orthodox Christians, accepted the essence of Darwin's theory. Christian anti-Darwinism was by no means shared by the majority of Protestants in Great Britain and America, who sought to come to an agreement-

2. Moore acknowledged that he was making extensive use of the revisionist thesis developed by sixteenth-and seventeenth-century scholars. See Moore, James R. (1979) The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900, p. ix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Ibid., p. ix.

page 14
meeting with Darwin. The fact that researchers, including historians of science and religion, have seen only "conflict" and "struggle" in the past allows, Moore argues, to speak of them as "prisoners of war" - in the sense that their character was reduced to their militant position in the post-Darwinian controversies4.

Although Moore has shown that the "conflict thesis" does not apply when trying to understand Protestant attitudes toward Darwin, he does not make the same argument when it comes to Huxley - Tom Huxley, whom Moore called "the ultimate gladiator", an old soldier who fought on the side of science in the war against religion. According to Moore, "Huxley was an ardent opponent of faith and certainly one of the most prominent figures who contributed to the Victorian 'conflict' between science and religion." Still, what mattered most to Moore about Huxley was that he wasn't typical. Contemporaries and later historians were wrong to think that Huxley, an outstanding, open evolutionist, was " ordinary "and"ordinary"5. On the whole, Moore did not significantly change the perception of Huxley that had been formed by earlier researchers who supported the "conflict thesis"; however, it is important to remember that Moore's focus was on the attitude of the Protestant community towards Darwin, and not towards Huxley and his allies. 6
Since the mid-1970s, Huxley and his friends have been studied by Frank M. Turner. In the second chapter of Between Science and Religion (1974), he analyzes the cosmology of this group. In his influential article, "The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: The Professional Dimension" (1978), published in the journal Isis, Turner argues that the intellectual aspect of the conflict, which involves an epistemological redefinition of science, is only one element in the broader redefinition of all scientific activity in the UK associated with the professionalization process. Finally, in The Rivalry for Cultural Authority, Turner collected many of his essays on Huxley and his colleagues, including a 1978 article, and presented a new interpretation that focused on the clash of two different groups

4. Moore, James R. (1979) The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900, p. 40.

5. Ibid., pp. 67-68.

6. Huxley's book is only ten pages long. See Ibid., pp. 58-68.

page 15
cultural elite: the younger generation of scientists who supported Darwin, and Anglican priests 7.

In these works, Turner sees Spencer, Tyndall, and Huxley as members of a broad group of British intellectuals who shared similar beliefs about science. In his opinion, all of them were representatives of a new generation of British scientists who appeared on the scene in the middle of the century. While most members of the scientific elite of the first half of the nineteenth century were staunch adherents of natural theology and Anglican institutions, Spencer, Tyndall, Huxley, and their allies sought to reform science by secularizing nature, professionalizing science, and stimulating expert knowledge. Turner refers to the members of this group as "scientific naturalists", using a term mentioned in one of Huxley's recent papers. Turner considered scientific naturalists to be the driving force behind the redefinition of science in the second half of the nineteenth century. They believe that true science excludes any reference to divine existence; instead, scientists should focus their efforts on studying observable causal relationships in nature. In addition to Huxley, Spencer, and Tyndall, Turner included the mathematician William Kingdon Clifford, the eugenicist Francis Galton, the statistician Carl Pearson, the anthropologists John Lubbock and Edward Tylor, the biologist Edwin Ray Lankester, and Dr. Henry Maudsley, as well as a group of journalists, publishers, and writers, including Leslie Stephen, G. Lewis,and others. John Morley, Grant Allen, and Edward Clodd. In his work, Turner describes the peak of the influence of scientific naturalists, which occurred in the period from the 1860s to the early 1880s, when they dominated the most important scientific communities, including the British Association for the Advancement of Science and the Royal Society.

However, Turner states, scientific naturalists did not seek only to reform scientific theories and institutions. They were equally interested in the transformation

7. Turner, Frank M. (1974) Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Turner, Frank M. (1978) "The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension", Isis 69: 356-376; Turner, Frank M. (1993) Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

8. In the prologue to Essays upon Some Controversial Questions (1892), Huxley presented a retrospective defense of what he called "the principle of scientific naturalism in the second half of the nineteenth century." See Huxley, Thomas H. (1892) Essays upon Some Controversial Questions, p. 35. London: Macmillan.

page 16
British culture in general. They put forward new interpretations of man, nature, and society derived from the theories, methods, and concepts of empirical science, especially the science of evolution. They tried to create a new scientific view of the evolutionary era that was not based on the authority of the Bible or religious perception. This brought them into conflict with the Christian community. Not only did they try to oust devout Christians from science who argued for a theological interpretation of nature, but they also challenged the cultural authority of the Anglican establishment by claiming to provide the intellectual leadership of modern, industrialized Britain. Not only did the Anglican establishment wield enormous power in the religious sphere, but throughout the nineteenth century, especially in the first half of it, it also enjoyed enormous socio-political influence and authority in the field of education. The ruling elite consisted of Anglicans, and the bishops of the House of Lords were a force to be reckoned with. It was only after the adoption of the Catholic Emancipation Bill of 1829 that Catholics were granted the right to sit in Parliament. The Religious Discrimination Bill of 1846 removed the remaining restrictions on non-Anglican Protestants and Catholics. Oxford and Cambridge were also primarily Anglican institutions in the first half of the nineteenth century. Before adoption in 1854. Under the University Reform Act of Parliament, students who wished to be admitted to Oxford University were required to pass a religious content test, which effectively required them to belong to Anglicanism.

Focusing on the competition for cultural authority and the topic of professionalization, Turner highlights the relationship between scientific naturalism and the socio-cultural context. In this appeal to the context, Turner followed a very promising line of study of the history of science in the eighties and nineties of the XX century. However, his new interpretation of the role of Huxley and his allies still focused attention on the conflict. The concept of competition for cultural authority could easily have been embedded in the more complex history of the conflict between science and religion in the nineteenth century. Although Turner managed to contextualize scientific naturalism, in his writings, as in Moore's, this story remained only part of an earlier historiography based on the dynamics of conflict.

page 17
Scientific reports naturalists - conciliators sciences and religions?

Moore's and Turner's work raised a central question for those of us who studied nineteenth-century British science and religion in the 1980s and 1990s: how to integrate our vision of scientific naturalists into the broader history of science that such major researchers as Peter Harrison, Ronald Nambers, David Lindbergh, Geoffrey Cantor, and John Brooke worked on?9 Nambers has argued that Brooke's Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (1991) is "the most significant contribution to the historiography of this scientific field since the publication of Andrew Dixon White's History of the Struggle between Science and Theology in Christendom almost a century ago." It was Nambers who described Brooke's new approach as the "complexity thesis," because Brooke "enjoyed describing the richness, complexity, and diversity of the mutual relationship between science and Christianity."10 Brooke strongly rejected the "conflict thesis" as any other simplistic thesis, while both Moore and Turner echoed the "conflict thesis"in their assessment of scientific naturalists. At this point, I would like to move away from a strictly historiographical approach and instead reinterpret Victorian scientific naturalism in our understanding of the history of the relationship between science and religion. 11 I developed this new vision when I tried to answer the question raised by the inspiring work of Moore and Turner, with the help of other scientists. I'm going to show that the key challenge is to rethink how scientific naturalists envisioned the complex relationship between science, religion, and theology, as well as to better understand the context in which their ideas were formed. I will begin this section by examining the views of scientific naturalists on the relationship between science and religion.

9. See the relatively recent collection: Dixon, Thomas, Cantor, Geoffrey and Pumfrey, Stephen (eds) (2010) Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. Numbers, Ronald L. "Simplifying Complexity: Patterns in the History of Science and Religion", in Dixon, Th., Cantor, G. and Pumfrey S. (eds) Science and Religion, p. 263.

11. Historiography will be covered in the notes, so as not to interrupt the analysis of historical figures and context.

page 18
Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer never considered science and religion as conflicting sides.12 They have repeatedly stated this publicly and unequivocally in their writings.13 This was not just rhetoric or a handout to public opinion. They expressed their commitment to this position both in letters and in personal records, as well as in publications. Tyndall refused to accept the simplistic conflict model; he insisted that science is at war only with the setting (scenery), and not with the essence of religion. "By framing," writes Tyndall, " we must understand what it really is: the desire of man to give a name to something that has no name; to express the ineffable; to enclose the mystery of life and everything connected with it within the limits of human possibilities. This framing should be taken as a symbol, not stated as a fact; understood as a temporary description in terms of knowledge of that which transcends all knowledge. In this case, nine-tenths of the talk about the "conflict between science and religion" would lose all ground. " 14 In 1859, the year of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, Huxley stated in an anonymous article that science and religion are not opposed to each other; rather, "true science and true religion are twin sisters, and the separation of one or the other will inevitably lead to the death of both. Science flourishes precisely to the extent that it has a religious content; religion, on the other hand, has flourished.-

12. I consider Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer to be the representatives and key figures of scientific naturalism. It should be noted that scientific naturalists were not a monolithic group. They often disagreed with each other. Turner acknowledged that there were differences, and Endersby and Barton emphasized this point. See Turner, F. Between Science and Religion, p. 10; Endersby, J. (2014) "Odd Man Out: Was Joseph Hooker an Evolutionary Naturalist?", in Gowan Dawson and Bernard Lightman (eds) Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community, Identity, Continuity, pp. 157-185. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; Ruth Barton's forthcoming book on the X-Club.

13. Ruth Barton was the first scientist to emphasize this fact in relation to Huxley. I later expanded this point to include Tyndall and Spencer. See Barton, Ruth (1983) " Evolution: The Whitworth Gun in Huxley's War for the Liberation of Science from Theology", in D. Oldroyd and I. Langham (eds) The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Thought, pp. 261-287. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company; Lightman, Bernard (1987) The Origins of Agnosticism: Victorian Unbelief and the Limits of Knowledge, pp. 116-134. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

14. Royal Institution, Tyndall Papers (hereafter RI-TP), John Tyndall's MS. Note-Books, "Religion, Carlyle, Political, Etc.", 15-16. (R. I. MSS T., 2 / E8). Tyndall makes a similar point, but without the key final phrase, in Tyndall, John (1892) Fragments of Science. 2 vols, 8th edn., vol. 2, p. 374. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

page 19
The first volume of Spencer's First Principles (1862), the first volume of his extensive work, The System of Synthetic Philosophy, was intended to reveal the "foundation of a complete reconciliation" between science and religion. "Science and religion represent opposite sides of the same fact," Spencer argued, because they both appeal to the idea of a mysterious force underlying phenomena.16
In light of the aggressive attacks on Christian theology characteristic of scientific naturalists, these claims about the harmony between science and religion require an explanation. This explanation is closely related to their dependence on German idealism and Romanticism, which led them to define religion in such a way that its conflict with science would be impossible. In their youth, Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer learned about German Romanticism through British intermediaries like Carlyle or Coleridge. But although they were drawn to various German romantics-Spencer to Oken, Tyndall to Fichte and Goethe, and Huxley to Goethe - they learned from their work that the search for transcendent meaning in nature, sometimes best expressed in poetic language, does not necessarily contradict the recognition of empirical and materialistic methods in science. The basis of all religion is the feeling that arises from contact with the manifestation of the transcendent in nature. However, religious sentiment should not be confused with theological dogma. Thus, Huxley discovered the distinction between religion and theology in Thomas Carlyle, and later in the writings of German thinkers. In a letter to Kingsley in 1860, Huxley confessed: "Sartor Resartus led me to realize that a deep religious feeling is compatible with a complete lack of theology. " 19
15. [Huxley, T. H.] (1859) "Science and Religion", The Builder, p. 35.

16. Spencer, Herbert (1882) First Principles of a New System of Philosophy, pp. 21-22. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

17. Taylor, Michael W. (2014) "Herbert Spencer and the Metaphysical Roots of Evolutionary Naturalism", in Bernard Lightman and Michael Reidy (eds) The Age of Scientific Naturalism: John Tyndall and His Contemporaries, pp. 71-88. London: Pickering and Chatto.

18. Barton, "Evolution: The Whitworth Gun", p. 264.

19. Huxley, Leonard (ed.) (1900) Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley. Vol. 1, p. 237. New York: D. Appleton & Co.

page 20
Tyndall, Huxley, and Spencer shared the belief that religion belongs to the realm of the senses, emotions, imagination, inner world, and symbol. As a vehicle for our innermost feelings, religion is best expressed in art and poetry. The religious instinct is innate. This positive attitude towards the value of religion, however, is often buried under their fierce attacks against Christian theology. Faith in the value of religion has enabled scientific naturalists to form public alliances and personal friendships with liberal Christians, and to discuss issues of exceptional importance with their opponents in less formal settings, such as at meetings of the Metaphysical Society.20 Huxley admired religion because of his personal religious sensibility. In 1873, when asked to describe his character, Galton noted that he was "deeply religious, bordering on fanaticism, but restrained by an equally deep theological skepticism." 21 The source of Huxley's religiosity was the realization of an unfathomable mystery that evokes a religious response in any person. Standing on the edge of the abyss of the "unknown and unknowable", people can only vaguely see the world. "But in this sadness," Huxley argued, "in this awareness of the limitations of man, in this sense of revealed mystery, which is impossible to comprehend, lies the essence of all religion." 22
Tyndall emphasized the need for everyone's vital commitment to religion, pointing out the mistake of equating religion with intellectual belief. He said that "religion is not a belief, it is life. It should come from the heart." Religion is intrinsic to humanity: it "finds some roots in human nature that are deeper than any sensory experience or our soul."-

20. Barton, Ruth (2014) "Sunday Lecture Societies: Naturalistic Scientists, Unitarians, and Secularists Unite Against Sabbatarian Legislation", in Gowan Dawson and Bernard Lightman (eds) Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community, Identity, Continuity, pp. 189-219. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; White, Paul "The Conduct of Belief: Agnosticism, the Metaphysical Society, and the Formation of Intellectual Communities", in Victorian Scientific Naturalism, pp. 220-241; Marshall, Catherine, Lightman, Bernard and England, Richard (eds) (2015) The Papers of the Metaphysical Society 1869-1880: A Critical Edition. 3 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

21. Pearson, Karl (1924) Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton, 3 vols. II, p. 178. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

22. Huxley, T. H. (1897) Method and Results, p. 33. New York: D. Appleton & Co.

page 21
temporary scientific logic " 23. Spencer argued that, despite the limitations of knowledge that prevent us from knowing the nature of the divine being, we nevertheless retain an awareness of the reality that lies beyond nature: it is this awareness that explains our unbreakable faith in this reality. "While the laws of thought strictly forbid us to create the concept of absolute existence," says Spencer,"the same laws of thought equally forbid us to dispense with the consciousness of absolute existence." 24 After all, Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer believed that science and religion, if properly understood, could never come into conflict, because each field was different from the other and could not claim authority outside its own sphere. Religion belongs to the realm of feeling, art, and poetry, while science belongs to the realm of intelligence and facts. Religion in its subjective dimension and symbolic expression can be reconciled with objective scientific facts if the boundaries between these two magisteria, as Stephen Jay Gould called them, are preserved.

Critics of the time did not attach much importance to the claims of scientific naturalists about the reconciliation of science and religion. They were often denounced as materialists and atheists, which was often associated with moral corruption and promiscuity. It was believed that naturalistic science could cause a flood of immorality, before which even the terrible vices of the pagan world would fade. From the late 1860s to the mid-1890s, scientific naturalism was associated with the" immorality " of avant-garde art and literature, in particular, with aestheticism.25
Attempts to link scientific naturalism with immoral materialism and atheism have become a significant obstacle to the establishment of a scientific society.-

23. RI-TP, Correspondence between Thomas Archer Hirst and John Tyndall, 16. (R. I. MSS T., 31 / B4, 12); RI-TP, Typescript Bound Journals of T. A. Hirst, vol. 1, 301; RI-TP, Correspondence between Thomas Archer Hirst and John Tyndall, 13. (R. I. MSS T., 31 / B4, 11).

24. Spencer, H. First Principles, p. 96. In 1867, E. Youmans, one of Spencer's followers in America, tried to clear up the misunderstandings found in the journal reviews of this work of Spencer. Youmans argued that by religion, Spencer does not mean theology, but "the emotional state that arises from the study of the Unknowable." См. Youmans, E. L. (March 1867) "Herbert Spencer and His Reviewers", Christian Examiner 82 (2): 221.

25. Dawson, Gowan (2007) Darwin, Literature and Victorian Respectability, pp. 26-81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

page 22
We expect a naturalistic worldview as a morally acceptable alternative to the Christian worldview. This has damaged the reputation of scientific naturalists, undermined their claim to cultural authority, and threatened the success of their strategy to rethink science. Scientific naturalists had strong tactical reasons for insisting that they, like the German Romantics, recognized the value of religion. But at the same time, they were quite sincere, expressing their beliefs both publicly and privately.

Return conflict?

In 2010, Jeffrey Cantor asked a provocative question: was the scientific response to the very concept of conflict "excessive" because of our strong objection to the simplistic nature of the"conflict thesis"? Cantor argued that "there are weaker interpretations of the conflict that are nevertheless commensurate with actual historical practice".26. Cantor distinguishes between the "strong" and "weak" versions of the"conflict thesis". The "weak" version implies that there have been two types of conflicts throughout history. First, it is the personal internal conflict of individuals, the tension or dissonance between their understanding of science and religion. "New large - scale scientific theories with strong ontological and epistemological implications, such as Newtonian mechanics or Darwin's theory of evolution, are likely to generate many new tensions in the future," says Kantor27. Secondly, Cantor points out the important role of social conflicts. Internal conflicts can reach the public domain and be used by different social groups, which leads to disagreements. However, Kantor warns, these are not necessarily conflicts between representatives of science and religion. Often this is just a debate between two groups, each of which has people who consider themselves representatives of science or religion.

This more subtle approach of Cantor to the concept of conflict is useful for understanding scientific naturalists. Huxley, Spencer and Tin-

26. Cantor, Geoffrey "What Shall We Do with the ‘Conflict Thesis'?", in Dixon, Cantor, Pumfrey (eds) Science and Religion, p. 287.

27. Ibid., p. 291.

page 23
The Dahl experienced internal conflicts when, as young people, they struggled with the faith in which they were born long before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.28 They came of age in the disastrous decade of the nineteen-forties, when the Chartist protests and the potato famine in Ireland raised serious questions about the state of British society. Huxley, for example, was born into a modest, lower-middle-class Anglican family. During the famine-ridden forties, he attended the Medical Academy in London, where prominent nonconformists lectured. There, he could hear teachers angrily denouncing aristocratic privileges and the natural-theological worldview that justifies the status quo.29 The poverty he saw in the slums of the East End hurt him deeply. It was a grim reminder that the Anglican aristocracy was not capable of providing a living for many members of English society. Huxley became receptive to Carlyle's indignant attacks on self-satisfied Victorian society; his speeches ignited Huxley's passion for social reform and contempt for traditional Christianity. The reflection of the evils that Huxley saw in Anglican-dominated British society was the problems in the British scientific world, where they also dominated. Those who studied at the Anglican universities of Oxford and Cambridge had an undeserved advantage in the competition for paid scientific publications, even in cases where the candidate, like Huxley, had excellent scientific training and knowledge. In addition, British science was largely shaped by the norms of natural theology. The Anglican apologist William Paley, in his influential work Natural Theology (1802), depicted the natural world as a scene of divine design, creation, and purpose. Tyndall and Spencer, who, like Huxley, were also outside the Oxbridge system, shared Huxley's protest against traditional natural theology. As suggested in my work

28. Lightman, Bernard (1990) "‘Robert Elsmere' and the Agnostic Crises of Faith", in Richard Helmstadter and Bernard Lightman (eds) Victorian Faith in Crisis: Essays on Continuity and Change in Nineteenth Century Religious Belief, pp. 283-311. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; London: Macmillan Press.

29. Desmond, Adrian (1989) The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

page 24
Turner, the principles of scientific naturalism were laid down in the fifties as a reaction to the dominant position of Anglicanism in science.

According to Cantor, social conflict occurs when internal conflicts are used by social groups in public disputes. In the case of scientific naturalists, the internal conflicts they, like many others of their generation, experienced in the forties became a major factor in the debate surrounding the publication of the Origin of Species. While on a superficial level, the controversy concerned the validity of Darwin's theory of evolution, on a deeper level, it concerned the nature of science, as well as scientific and even cultural authority. Scientific naturalists used these debates as an opportunity to advance the naturalistic concept of science and reject traditional natural theology. They also claimed to represent science and understand the great cultural significance of modern science. Those who did not want to recognize the results of naturalistic scientific activity could be criticized for slowing down scientific progress. Anyone who denied the principles of the theory of evolution could be accused of a medieval worldview.

The distinction between science and religion made by scientific naturalists has played a key role in this social conflict. Their commitment to this distinction allowed them to position themselves as conciliators who defended the value of both science and religion. At the same time, they exploited the internal conflicts experienced by many Victorians due to complications in their relationship with Christian theology. Some of these complications were related to the theory of evolution. While religion belongs to the realm of the senses, theology was referred to the realm of the intellect, or mind. As a result of this position, theological teachings could be tested, just like any judgment in the field of intelligence. Indeed, scientific naturalists argued that theology should submit to the authority of science, since it operates in the world of facts.

This was one of Tyndall's statements in the famous Belfast Speech (1874), which infuriated his opponents. According to Tyndall, religion brings "inner fullness and dignity" to people's souls as long as it remains "in the realm of emotions and poetry", but turns to harm if it invades the realm of objective knowledge. Any system that "goes overboard-

page 25
It should "be placed under its control". Scientists, according to Tyndall's aggressive statement, "stand up for their rights, and we must free the entire field of cosmological theory from theology." 30 Huxley was a little less aggressive, but he was of the same opinion. In 1864, Huxley declared: "Religion reigns unshakably in those depths of human nature that are around and below the intellect, but not in it." "But theology," Huxley insisted, "is simply a branch of science-or nothing." 31 Twenty-one years later, Huxley declared that the infamous conflict between science and religion was the fault of those who confused religion with theology. Moreover, both "believers" and scientists are responsible for this. "The antagonism between science and religion that we so often hear about," he said, " seems to me to be pure fiction, fabricated, on the one hand, by short-sighted religious people who confuse a certain field of science, theology, with religion; and, on the other hand, by equally short-sighted scientists who forget that science includes religion." only that which presupposes clear intellectual comprehension; and that outside of this domain they must be content with imagination, hope, and ignorance."32 Other scientific naturalists have expressed similar views in their writings. 33 Criticism of Christian theology for its unscientific nature has been an important part of the claim of scientific naturalists that it is they, and not others, who should be content with it. non-Anglican clergy were considered the main scientific and cultural authorities.

It is in this interpretation that the rivalry for cultural superiority described by Turner between the Anglican clergy and scientific naturalists fits. However, this is not a conflict between science and religion. This is a conflict between two social groups that disagree about what science and religion are. Or rather, a conflict between two social groups that held different concepts of reconciliation.

30. Tyndall, Fragments of Science, vol. 2, pp. 196-197.

31. [Huxley, T. H.] (1864) "Science and ‘Church Policy'", Reader 4 (Dec. 31): 821.

32. Huxley, T. H. (1914) Science and Hebrew Tradition, pp. 160-161. London: Macmillan & Co.

33. Lightman, Origins of Agnosticism, pp. 132-134.

page 26
and religion 34. Scientific naturalists were convinced that science and religion, if properly understood, did not conflict with each other. Their opponents argue for a natural-theological model of harmony, where science and religion overlap: this idea is at the heart of the judgment that the theological principles of the divine plan are the foundation for understanding nature. The temptation to link the social conflict in which scientific naturalists find themselves involved with the strict model of the "conflict thesis" is partly due to their intense activity precisely when this thesis was established - in the seventies of the XIX century, starting with the publication of Draper's "History of the Conflict between Science and Religion". But as we can see, scientific naturalists adopted the "weak" model long before Draper's book was published.

Scientific reports naturalists - theologians?

Three years before his death, Huxley drew a parallel between a key Christian belief and the scientific theory that he had so zealously defended since 1859... an expression of that... that chance is completely excluded even in the most insignificant corner of nature; if this means a firm belief in the rationality of the cosmic process, as well as a belief that throughout the entire existence of the universe there is an unbroken order in it, I not only recognize this doctrine, but I am inclined to consider it the most important of all truths." But Huxley didn't stop there. If the doctrine of Providence was supposed to imply that in some "distant past aeon" the cosmic process was initiated by some entity with intelligence and foresight beyond our own intelligence and foresight, and if every event was known in advance ,then " scientific thought... there is nothing to object to this hypothesis." Such a hypothesis is "in fact an anthropomorphic version of the theory of evolution" 35. However, Huxley's claim that there are significant similarities between the Christian concept of Providence and the scientific doctrine of evolution is puzzling. If iu-

34. Lightman, Bernard (2001) "Victorian Sciences and Religions: Discordant Harmonies", Osiris 16: 343-366.

35. Huxley, T. H. (1892) "An Apologetic Irenicon", Fortnightly Review 58: 567.

page 27
There is a conflict between science and theology, so why does Huxley point out the similarities between scientific theory and theological doctrine?

Huxley, Tyndall, and Spencer all turned to many concepts closely associated with the Christian theology of the time in order to formulate, mostly in a secularized form, some of their deepest beliefs about nature and man. Huxley's views on teleology in nature, Spencer's idea of the evolutionary theodicy, and Tyndall's reflections on the internal implications of the first two laws of thermodynamics for the future of our planet point to a dimension in the thinking of scientific naturalists that is rarely noticed. The relationship between science and religion, in their view, was not just a relationship of conflict. The potential for conflict arose when Christian theologians began to put forward their theological theories on unscientific grounds. By confusing religion with theology, they objectified their feelings. However ,and this point is often overlooked, the concept of the relationship between science, theology and religion proposed by scientific naturalists does not exclude the possibility of the existence of a theology compatible with the theories of modern science. This argument did not imply the elimination of all theology, but only that which had no scientific basis. Huxley, Spencer, and Tyndall revised Christian theology in the light of modern science to formulate their own theology. Along with emphasizing religious feelings, scientific naturalists offered Victorians a new creed that they hoped would both intellectually and spiritually satisfy them as an alternative to the Christian symbol.

In the chapter "On the Reception of the Origin of Species" (in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin) Huxley analyzed the objections to Darwin's theory raised at the beginning of the evolution debate, based on philosophical and theological considerations. Although these objections were answered many times, they continued to be raised, according to Huxley. One common objection was that Darwin's theories rejected teleology and undermined the expediency argument. In response, Huxley cited the example of William Paley as a proto-evolutionist who predicted the union of teleology and the mechanistic theory of evolution. "Paley, a shrewd advocate of teleology," said Huxley, "saw no difficulty in recognizing that the' appearance of things ' can be the result of successive mechanical processes.

page 28
locations established in advance by some intelligent providence and maintained by a central force. In other words, he accepted the modern doctrine of evolution in advance." Huxley advised Paley's successors to follow him, rather than rush to denounce the antagonism between evolution and teleology. 36 The new teleology underlying Huxley's secularized vision of natural theology was based on the notion of order established by the deterministic laws of nature. According to these laws, nature develops in a certain prescribed direction. The theory of evolution describes one of these laws. Modern science has therefore provided evidence for this renewed interpretation of expediency in nature, where order itself is the goal. It was a scientific theology that scientific naturalists could support.

While Huxley proposed the foundations of a secularized version of natural theology to justify teleology's place in the theory of evolution, Spencer turned to the eternal theme of Christian theology - the problem of evil. One of Spencer's main tasks in his Social Statics, first published in 1850, was to explain why evil exists in the world. "All evil," Spencer argued, " stems from the incongruity of the internal structure with the surrounding conditions." If a plant dies in infertile soil or dies when there is a lack of light, this is because"the harmony between the body and the surrounding conditions is disturbed"37. According to Spencer, evil can only be fully understood in terms of evolution. It arose because living things were not adapted to the environment. Spencer's evolutionary theodicy has much in common with traditional Christian attempts to explain why an omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent God allowed evil to exist. 38 In your vision

36. Huxley, T. H. (1888) "On the Reception of the ‘Origin of Species'", in Francis Darwin (ed.) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 3 vols. Vol. 2, p. 202. London: John Murray.

37. Spencer, Herbert (1896) Social Statics, Abridged and Revised; Together with The Man Versus the State, p. 28. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

38. The idea that scientific naturalists supported a secular evolutionary theodicy that rationalizes the existing social order is not new. At least one scientist, Robert Young, noticed this more than forty years ago. See Young, Robert (1985) Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture, pp. 191, 199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; see also

page 29
Spenser saw evil, or the lack of adaptability of organisms to their environment, as a necessary component of the nature of things, as part of an evolutionary process directed by a mysterious deity. His Victorian readers, however, could take comfort in the fact that gradual progress was inevitable. Similar to Christian theodicies, Spencer's theory of cosmic evolution was conceived to reconcile humanity with the natural and social order. Both of these orders are virtually the same, or at least governed by the same natural law.

Whereas Huxley analyzed scientific natural theology, and Spencer analyzed evolutionary theodicy, Tyndall began to rethink eschatology in the light of modern science. Tyndall was confused by the cosmological implications of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. As a result, he rarely considered the second law in his writings, and when he did, he tried to avoid drawing pessimistic conclusions from it.39 In his work "Heat: a mode of motion", first published in 1863, he drew particular attention to the colossal heat generated by the Sun, and proposed a scientific hypothesis that refutes the possible heat death of the Sun. Tyndall presented the hypothesis of Robert Meyer, first put forward in his work "Celestial Dynamics" (1848), according to which the Sun is renewed due to the very high temperature that occurs when it collides with fast-moving meteors.40 In the last pages of the book, Tyndall describes the universe in a state of constant cyclical renewal. He reminds readers of the Sun's colossal energy and how " infinite is its supply of energy." But the Sun is only "a tiny drop in the ocean of the universe." Outside of our Solar system, there are other universes and other suns, each of which produces energy "without violating, however, the law of immutability in spite of all changes; a law that recognizes incessant transformation or reversal, never leading to unconditional predominance."

Moore, James R. "Theodicy and Society: The Crisis of the Intelligentsia", in Helmstadter and Lightman (eds) Victorian Faith in Crisis, pp. 153-186.

39. Neswald, Elizabeth "Saving the World in An Age of Entropy: John Tyndall and the Second Law of Thermodynamics", in Lightman and Reidy (ed.) Age of Scientific Naturalism, pp. 15-31.

40. Tyndall, John (1863) Heat as a Mode of Motion, pp. 419-423. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green.

page 30
final gain or loss " 41. Tyndall seems to be denying the second law of thermodynamics in his last sentence. Tyndall, using poetic language, describes how energy spreads throughout the Universe, forming waves, then ripples, then waves again, passing through objects and giving them life. "Asteroids can combine to form suns," Tyndall continues in grandiloquent language, " suns can break up into flora and fauna, and flora and fauna can melt into thin air: the flow of energy remains forever unchanged. It is rolled by music through the ages, while the manifestations of life, like the play of phenomena, are only modulations of its rhythm. " 42 Thus, Tyndall's scientifically formulated idea of cyclical cosmology served as the basis for a new eschatology. Scientific naturalists were not hostile to all forms of theology. Huxley drew analogies between the design of natural theology and the natural order revealed by the theory of evolution. Spencer considered the problem of evil in the evolutionary process, proposing a secular theodicy. Tyndall developed an eschatology based on a new interpretation of energy physics: he avoided the pessimism inherent in the second law of thermodynamics. Although they often secularized theology, the parallels point to a much more complex concept of the relationship between science and religion. Theology is in the realm of the factual, and therefore potentially comes into conflict with science. However, instead of claiming that all theology automatically conflicts with science, scientific naturalists were willing to take into account revised theological doctrines based on facts. They drew parallels between modern science and Christian theology, trying to convince the Victorian public that their creed was as good both intellectually and spiritually as that of their opponents.

Final notes reflections: scientific naturalism, the science and religion in XIX v.

Tyndall, Huxley, and Spencer all rejected the idea of an" innate " conflict between science and religion. If the boundaries between

41. Tyndall, John (1863) Heat as a Mode of Motion, pp. 433-434.

42. Ibid., p. 434.

page 31
If they are strictly differentiated and consolidated, then each of them can be considered autonomous within their own spheres of influence. Religion, expressed in poetry and art, represents a precious inner dimension of human emotional experience. Science related to facts and intelligence provides an understanding of the natural world. But theology, the attempt to confine religious feeling to dogma, can provoke tension if it has no scientific basis. Theology was required to conform to the scientific method, since it is a branch of science. If there is such a correspondence, then it is possible to develop sound theological doctrines. From the point of view of Huxley, Spencer, and Tyndall, legitimate theological doctrines about teleology in nature, theodicy, and eschatology could be formulated on the basis of their current scientific understanding of nature. These people were therefore not religious radicals or atheists who sought to eliminate all forms of religion and theology, but were critics of institutional religion and its unscientific theology. When Huxley and Tyndall denied that they were destructive religious fanatics and placed themselves in the tradition of the Protestant Reformation, they were not hypocritical.43 They saw themselves as religious reformers. This is why Huxley claimed to have arrived at his agnostic point of view through his personal experience of judgment. "My position,"he said," consists only in expounding, and the only justification for this position is my belief in the superiority of private judgment (in fact, in the impossibility of evading it), which is the basis of the Protestant Reformation; this idea was shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in my youth. " 44
If those of us who study scientific naturalism are forced to reconsider our views on our characters in light of the emergence of the "complexity thesis," what further conclusions can we draw if we understand them as religious reformers rather than religious radicals? As I have already said, scientific naturalists are key figures in the history of the relationship between science and religion in the nineteenth century. Rethink-

43. Lightman, "‘Robert Elsmere' and the Agnostic Crises of Faith", in Helmstadter and Lightman (eds) Victorian Faith in Crisis, pp. 302-303; Lightman, Origins of Agnosticism, pp. 123-125.

44. Huxley, Thomas Henry (1909) Science and Christian Tradition, p. 267. London: Macmillan & Co.

page 32
A discussion of their role can raise a number of questions about the nineteenth century as a whole. What will be the consequences if it turns out that the "conflict thesis" is no more relevant to scientific naturalism than it is to understanding Protestant reactions to Darwin's theory of evolution in the nineteenth century? We can now bury the "conflict thesis" forever, at least as far as the nineteenth century is concerned, even though we should keep in mind Cantor's" weak " version of the conflict. This means that the publication of the Origin of Species should not be viewed as a historical turning point, as a scientific revolution on a gigantic scale that led to tectonic shifts in the way of thinking. Natural theology has not been destroyed, 45 and religion has not been completely rejected as a result of scientific naturalists ' attacks on Christianity. Therefore, the claim that the 19th century was an era of secularization in the West needs to be clarified. We will need to revise our conceptions of the history of science and religion in the nineteenth century in a way that makes us more sensitive to the important role that religion continued to play until the end of this period. We must avoid describing the intelligentsia as divided into two radically hostile groups46. The full picture will be more complex and interesting if we accept a wide range of views on the relationship between science and religion.

Translation with english Maria Khramovoy

Bibliography/References

Barton, R. (1983) "Evolution: The Whitworth Gun in Huxley's War for the Liberation of Science from Theology", in D. Oldroyd and I. Langham (eds) The Wider Domain

45. These findings confirm earlier works that were not widely accepted after the first publication. Robert Young emphasized the deeper continuity of thought that developed throughout the nineteenth century despite Darwin's teachings, and Peter Bowler rejected the idea of a Darwinian revolution. See Young, Darwin's Metaphor, p. 199; Bowler, Peter J. (1988) The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press; Bowler, Peter J. (1983) The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

46. Scientific naturalists not only shared with theistic scientists a sense of the importance of religion, but also agreed on one of the basic principles underlying scientific practice in the second half of the nineteenth century: the uniformity of nature. Stanley argues that this made the scientific community possible. См. Stanley, Matthew (2015) Huxley's Church and Maxwell's Demon: From Theistic Science to Naturalistic Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

page 33
Thought Evolutionary of, pp. 261-287. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

Barton, R. (2014) "Sunday Lecture Societies: Naturalistic Scientists, Unitarians, and Secularists Unite Against Sabbatarian Legislation", in G. Dawson and B. Lightman (eds) Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community, Identity, Continuity, pp. 189-219. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bibby, C. (1960) T. H. Huxley: Scientist, Humanist and Educator. New York: Horizon Press.

Bowler, P. J. (1983) The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades around 1900. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bowler, P. J. (1988) The Non-Darwinian Revolution: Reinterpreting a Historical Myth. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Cantor, G. (2010) "What Shall We Do with the ‘Conflict Thesis'?", in Dixon, Th., Cantor, G. and Pumfrey, S. (eds) Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives, pp. 283-298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dawson, G. (2007) Darwin, Literature and Victorian Respectability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Desmond, A. (1989) The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Dixon, Th., Cantor, G. and Pumfrey, S. (eds) (2010) Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Endersby, J. (2014) "Odd Man Out: Was Joseph Hooker an Evolutionary Naturalist?", in G. Dawson and B. Lightman (eds) Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community, Identity, Continuity, pp. 157-185. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Huxley, L. (ed.) (1900) Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, 2 vols. New York: D. Appleton & Co.

Huxley, T. H. (1892) "An Apologetic Irenicon", Fortnightly Review 58.

Huxley, T. H. (1899) Darwiniana. Macmillan & Co.

Huxley, T. H. (1892) Essays upon Some Controverted Questions. London: Macmillan.

Huxley, T. H. (1897) Method and Results. New York: D. Appleton & Co.

Huxley, T. H. (1888) "On the Reception of the ‘Origin of Species'", in Francis Darwin (ed.) The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 3 vols. London: John Murray.

[Huxley, T. H.] (1864) "Science and ‘Church Policy'", Reader 4 (Dec. 31).

Huxley, T. H. (1914) Science and Hebrew Tradition. London: Macmillan & Co.

Huxley, T. H. (1909) Science and Christian Tradition. London: Macmillan & Co.

[Huxley, T. H.] (1859) "Science and Religion", The Builder.

Lightman, B. (1987) The Origins of Agnosticism: Victorian Unbelief and the Limits of Knowledge. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lightman, B. (1990) "‘Robert Elsmere' and the Agnostic Crises of Faith", in R. Helmstadter and B. Lightman (eds) Victorian Faith in Crisis: Essays on Continuity and Change in Nineteenth Century Religious Belief, pp. 283-311. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; London: Macmillan Press.

Lightman, B. (2001) "Victorian Sciences and Religions: Discordant Harmonies", Osiris 16: 343-366.

Moore, J. R. (1979) The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870-1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

page 34
Moore, J. R. (1990) "Theodicy and Society: The Crisis of the Intelligentsia", in R. Helmstadter and B. Lightman (eds) Victorian Faith in Crisis: Essays on Continuity and Change in Nineteenth Century Religious Belief, pp. 153-186. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press; London: Macmillan Press.

Neswald, E. (2014) "Saving the World in an Age of Entropy: John Tyndall and the Second Law of Thermodynamics", in B. Lightman and M. Reidy (eds) The Age of Scientific Naturalism: John Tyndall and His Contemporaries, pp. 15-31. London: Pickering and Chatto.

Numbers, R. L. (2010) "Simplifying Complexity: Patterns in the History of Science and Religion", in Th. Dixon, G. Cantor, and S. Pumfrey (eds) Science and Religion: New Historical Perspectives, pp. 263-282. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.

RI - TP (Royal Institution - Tyndall Papers). Correspondence between Thomas Archer Hirst and John Tyndall, 16. (R.I. MSS T., 31/B4, 12)

RI - TP (Royal Institution - Tyndall Papers). Typescript Bound Journals of T. A. Hirst, vol. 1.

Spencer, H. (1896) Social Statics, Abridged and Revised; Together with The Man Versus the State. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Spencer, H. (1882) First Principles of a New System of Philosophy. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Stanley, M. (2015) Huxley's Church and Maxwell's Demon: From Theistic Science to Naturalistic Science. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Turner, F. M. (1974) Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Turner, F. M. (1993) Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, F. M. (1978) "The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension", Isis 69: 356-376.

Tyndall, J. (1892) Fragments of Science, 2 vols, 8th edn. Vol. 2. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

Tyndall, J. (1863) Heat as a Mode of Motion, pp. 419-423. London: Longman, Green, Longman, Roberts & Green.

Taylor, M. W. (2014) "Herbert Spencer and the Metaphysical Roots of Evolutionary Naturalism", in Bernard Lightman and Michael Reidy (eds) The Age of Scientific Naturalism: John Tyndall and His Contemporaries, pp. 71-88. London: Pickering and Chatto.

White, P. (2014) "The Conduct of Belief: Agnosticism, the Metaphysical Society, and the Formation of Intellectual Communities", in Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community, Identity, Continuity, pp. 220-241. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Young, R. (1985) Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

page 35

Permanent link to this publication: