JAMES STREET FULTON. Science and Man's Hope. Pp. 179. New York: Bookman Associates for the Rice Institute, 1954. $3.25

• Published date: 01 July 1955
• DOI: 10.1177/000271625530000158
• Author: Ernest Nagel
• Date: 01 July 1955
• Subject Matter: Articles

162

ange,

N.

J.:

Seton

Hall

University

Press,

1954.

$3.00.

Confusion

Twice

Confounded

treats

only

the

ten

opening

words

of

the

First

Amend-

ment,

&dquo;Congress

shall

make

no

law

respect-

ing

an

establishment

of

religion.&dquo;

The

&dquo;Confusion

Twice

Confounded&dquo;

is

found

in

two

decisions

of

the

Supreme

Court

of

the

United

States:

Everson

v.

Board

of

f

Education

of

Ewing

Toumship,

330

U.

S.

1,

the

parochial

school

bus

fare

case,

and

McCollum

v.

Board

of

Education,

333

U.

S.

203,

the

&dquo;released

time&dquo;

for

religious

classes

case.

The

author’s

position

is

that

although

the

decision

of

the

Court

was

right

in

the

Everson

case,

the

discussion

in

the

majority

opinion

showed

that

the

Court

had

a

completely

mistaken

view

of

the

history

and

purpose

of

the

constitu-

tional

provision,

which

mistaken

view

was

soon

thereafter

embodied

in

the

McCollum

decision,

which

was

wrong.

The

author’s

view

is

that

all

that

was

intended

by

the

constitutional

provision

was

that

Congress

should

not,

by

law,

create

an

established

church

or

an

estab-

lished

religion

for

the

nation;

that

the

provision

had

nothing

to

do

with

the

mat-

ter

of

nondiscriminatory

support

or

en-

couragement

of

religion

in

general.

An

obvious

criticism

of

the

book

is

that

there

is

substantially

nothing

new

in

it.

The

book,

Religion

and

Education

Under

the

Constitution,

by

J.

M.

O’Neill,

pub-

lished

in

1949,

expresses

the

same

attitude

toward

the

subject

and

uses

the

same

his-

torical

and

other

factual

information.

The

O’Neill

book

even

anticipates

the

current

one

in

its

indignant,

intemperate,

and

dis-

respectful

attitude

toward

the

Justices

of

the

Supreme

Court.

The

essays

in

the

sym-

posium

on

Religion

and

the

State,

in

Vol-

ume

XIV,

No. 1,

of

Law

and

Contempo-

rary

Problems,

especially

Judge

Fahy’s

essay

on

Religion,

Education,

and

the

Su-

preme

Court,

cover

much

the

same

ground.

The

historical

and

factual

data

given

by

the

author

are

marshaled

with

skill

and

acumen

and

are

quite

convincing.

A

strong

case

is

made

that

Jefferson,

by

his

&dquo;wall

of

separation

between

church

and

state&dquo;

observation,

had

no

such

idea,

for

his

own

State

of

Virginia,

as

that

which

emerged

from

the

McCollum

opinion.

And

Madison’.s

subsequent

conduct

seems

to

show

that

he

had

no

such

idea

for

the

Federal

Government,

to

which

the

First

Amendment

was

directly

applicable.

Those

who

defend

the

McCollum

deci-

sion

and

the

Everson

dicta

do

not

say

much

about

the

historical

facts.

They

urge

that

the

law

as

laid

down

by

the

Supreme

Court

is

a

wise

law

for

current

times,

and

that

it

is

not

important

that

it

goes

farther

than

the

constitutional

fathers

may

have

intended.

Whether

the

text

&dquo;Congress

shall

make

no

law

respecting

an

establishment

of

religion&dquo;

is

that

kind

of

a

flexible

text,

like

&dquo;due

process

of

law&dquo;

or

&dquo;commerce

among

the

several

states,&dquo;

the

meaning

of

which

may

vary

from

time

to

time,

is

highly

debatable.

J.

WARREN

MADDEN

The

United

States

Court

of

Claims

JAMES

STREET

FULTON.

Science

and

Man’s

Hope.

Pp.

179.

New

York:

Bookman

Associates

for

the

Rice

Institute,

1954.

$3.25.

This

book

seeks

to

present

an

inclusive

moral

ideal

(&dquo;man’s

hope&dquo;),

and

to

deter-

mine

the

source

and

character

of

moral

knowledge.

The

view

proposed

is

that

the

human

good

is

realized

in

the

&dquo;moving

creativity

of

life,&dquo;

the

ideal

culmination

of

&dquo;constructive

decision&dquo;

consisting

in

an

alert

sensitivity

to

every

reality

according

to

its

kind.

It

is

also

argued

that

although

moral

knowledge

is

&dquo;rational,&dquo;

such

knowl-

edge

stems

from

an

&dquo;inward&dquo;

insight

and

is

radically

different

from

conclusions

ob-

tainable

by

the

methods

of

empirical

sci-

ence.

According

to

Dr.

Fulton,

who

is

professor

of

philosophy

at

the

Rice

Insti-

tute,

science

is

incapable

of

supplying

normative

moral

principles.

For

science

cannot

define

the

ideals

of

life,

even

if

sci-

ence

can

discover

some

of

the

instrumen-

talities

for

achieving

human

blessedness,

and

even

if

the

life

of

science

is

itself

a

splendid

illustration

of

human

effort

&dquo;to

become

fully

alive

by

becoming

alert

to

the

full

reach

of

the

processes

which

sus-

tain

our

existence.&dquo;

Dr.

Fulton

writes

with

passionate

elo-

quence

and

conviction,

and

he

exhibits

a