Much has been written concerning the antagonism between science and religion. So far as their fundamental natures are concerned no antagonism exists; but practically there is opportunity for continued disagreements in the matter of interpretation. Inasmuch as religion started as nature worship, it has had continuously to readjust itself to the progress of scientific knowledge. If it could do so promptly antagonisms would not arise. But religion, in order to inspire confidence, must be absolute in its dogmas and therefore it becomes extremely resistant to change. On the other hand science itself is not infallible. In its groping after truth science formulates many hypotheses only to abandon them, and for religion to try to adjust itself continually to every passing phase of science would mean the sacrifice of its prestige and authority. To protect themselves from liability to attack, ethical religions should free themselves entirely from the myths of nature religions and abandon the attempt to interpret natural phenomena. When religions confine themselves to ethical and spiritual phenomena, they will be unaffected by the changing hypotheses and interpretations of science in the material world.

Religion and Art. The relationship between religion and art is one of mutual aid and stimulation rather than of competition. Both appeal to the emotions, and religion has found art an indispensible agent in cultivating for her use a receptive and pliant attitude of mind. Aesthetic instruments include not merely architecture, painting, and music, as immediate forces, but also the formulation of myths and religious dogmas as a part of religious belief. The apparent conflict between religion and science is, to a considerable degree, more properly a conflict between art and science. The myths and dogmas of religion, which are really artistic appeals and merely instruments which religion has made use of, have been confused with religion itself. Therefore when, with the progress of positive knowledge, these dogmas become shattered, their destruction has been interpreted as a blow to religion itself instead of to one of its outworn instruments. From a viewpoint extending over the ages, it will be evident that the essence of religion has survived the annihilation of a multitude of dogmas. These in their time served useful purposes, but to maintain its sovereignty religion will always have to keep pace with the advance of intelligence and knowledge by discarding concrete artistic appeals to the emotions which have become worn out, even though at the time of their greatest vogue they may have seemed the very heart of religion, so powerful was their sanction.

Art, in its turn, has found in religion, and in religious conceptions of the ideal, one of the most vital influences on its development.

Effects of Religion. Originally the chief value of religion lay in its explanation of the universe. This function has been a characteristic of all religions; but it is perhaps a more prominent attribute of nature religions when lack of scientific knowledge made necessary a religious explanation of the more common and immediate natural phenomena. Ethical religions, while abandoning the attempt to explain natural phenomena, still assume to provide answers to the ultimate problems of life.

The human mind demands some sort of explanation of life's problems, and while the answers furnished by religion were often crude and partial, they seem to have sufficed to provide a philosophical basis for action. Every active mind searches for some philosophy of life, and this philosophy forms the framework of its religion.

Another function of religion is that it fortifies the individual by allying him with external forces more powerful than himself. Of all the influences of religion, this is the one which has made the chief appeal to the individual in all stages of culture and in all forms of belief. From the lowest stages of culture where man tried to make a compact with the strongest of the spirits, to the highest stages of culture where man attempts to realize perfect harmony, the religious motive is the same. It arises out of the feeling of helplessness or dependence, and it is strongest when the feeling of helplessness is most oppressive. However, the conclusion to be drawn is not that religion is the refuge of the timid and the inefficient, for all people are alike dependent. The self-centered and the self-sufficient are the least religious. True religion is the instrument of those with a vision who seek complete harmony and the full realization of all their faculties.

A third effect of religion is its influence on conduct. This effect is the natural outcome of the two functions of religion already given. In so far as a person possesses a philosophy of life, and is not merely drifting, he must be influenced by that philosophy. The strength of the influence will depend on the hold which his belief has upon him, and the importance which it attaches to conduct. Nevertheless, the most effective impulse is the conviction that only in so far as he follows a particular line of conduct will the external forces be available to an individual. As religion deals with the non-material it presents nonmaterial sanctions for conduct. Religion, in addition to the ordinary sanctions of law, custom, and public opinion, makes use of spiritual welfare both in this life and in a future life. Therefore in early times the relationship between man and nature and the spiritual world, and later also the relationship of men with one another, has always been regulated, in addition to the other means of social control, by the strong motives of religion.

Religion, as a method of regulating social conduct, has had undesirable as well as desirable consequences. In a barbaric age when social contacts were multiplying and the earlier forces of control were weakening, it was necessary and desirable to curb selfish and brutal instincts with the strongest weapon religion could furnish; but continuous appeal to the unknown has caused religion to remain absolute in its dictates and arbitrary in its methods. It is quite true that if religion is doubtful or vacillating in its precepts it fails to command respect and obedience; but the exercise of arbitrary power even in the religious sphere may lead to abuse, for religions as well as scientific systems are liable to error. Although exceptional men have perceived moral and spiritual truths which could be taught and applied with assurance, the nature of revelation has been such that others, with authority but without spiritual perception, have been able to supplement and reinterpret truths for selfish and even immoral purposes. And sometimes even genuine religious leaders, believing the religious truth in their possession to be allinclusive and final, have crushed independence of thought and checked intellectual progress. Futhermore, the strong emphasis placed upon the sanction of the after-life has tended to make religion conservative in its influence and has often caused it to ignore well-being in this life. Inasmuch as religion has been unable to guarantee immediate material rewards for right conduct, it has tended to place increasing stress on future rewards, and consequently to belittle the present life as a mere transition period. Religion, therefore, enjoining submission to those in authority, and teaching patient endurance of present hardships in the hope of future rewards, has ordinarily been a strong force for the preservation of the existing social order. Opposition to change has been widely accepted as the spirit of religion, and consequently religion has lost many adherents because of its conservatism. But however important these religious teachings may have been, it must be evident that they do not represent the essential spirit of religion in the least. They are either an overemphasis of particular truths or a perversion of truths for selfish ends.

In addition to its immediate influences on the individual, religion offers also a strong bond of social unity, not only because those who think alike are drawn together through sympathy, but because the gods come to be looked upon as supreme rulers. And, as the gods have almost always been local rather than universal, loyalty to the same gods has been a sign of community of interests, or social integration. During the period of polytheism gods were definitely tribal or national possessions. The existence of other gods was recognized, but they were looked upon as foreign and inferior. No one could be adopted into a tribe who remained loyal to foreign gods. Much the same sentiment exists, though not so strongly, in monotheistic religions. While theoretically they all recognize only one god of the universe, marked differences of belief concerning that god, and striking variations in the modes of his worship, convince the adherents of each religion that all creeds other than their own are erroneous, and preclude any widespread feeling of religious unity. Traces of this bigotry are to be found even among the different sects and denominations of the same religion, and they form a disintegrating factor in society. The seriousness of a rift will depend of course both upon the importance which a society attributes to religion, and upon the strength of the opposition between religious groups. Religious disunion, which at one stage of social development may make social life impossible, may at a more advanced stage be negligible, or may even become a mental and religious stimulus. The conclusion is that religion is always a strong force in socialization so long as its ideals and codes of morals are similar; and when variations in religious beliefs exist, their disruptive menace will depend rather upon the stage of social development in which tirey occur than upon the nature of the religious differences themselves. If social life has reached that stage where integrations are strong enough so that divergences may be tolerated, then religious variations will not be dangerous.

Factors in the Development of Religions. The description of the nature of religions given in the first section shows that they vary widely in defferent places, and that all pass through similar stages of development. The next task will be to ascertain the nature of those differences and to analyze the influences which have brought them about. Religions are so numerous and the influences affecting them so varied that it will be impossible to make an inductive presentation of such an analysis. The conclusions themselves, with sufficient examples for illustration rather than for proof, will have to suffice. The forces which determine the character and growth of religious ideas may be classified under three heads: character of the physical environment, stage of mental development, and social and political conditions.

Influence of the physical environment. If we should confine our study to nature religions alone, it would be almost a truism to say that religious belief was determined by the character and variety of the physical environment. If anyone is attempting to explain nature he is of course interpreting that part of nature which he sees. Mountains and rivers, moisture and dryness, cold and heat, will enter into his religion according to their importance in his environment. Although the general fact that the physical environment molds religions may be self-evident, the specific forms which its influence has taken, even in early religions, requires further explanation. The power of the environment may be sufficiently illustrated by pointing out its effects: