My intention in presenting this review-essay is to provide some ideas about the relation of science and religion. As a scientist who has accepted religion as valid and important in his life, I have been in a position to feel harassed, and not always very intelligently so, by both people and writers who claim a religious motive, and by people and writers who assert no such motive—and who, on the contrary, proclaim to be on some value-free neutral ground. And then a third source of intellectual anguish arises from the well-nigh unresolvable clash and intellectual warfare between fundamental religious groups and parts of the scientific community who are allied with constitutionalists and civil libertarians. In my view, both groups have some right on their side, both much wrong. But, can one of any religious persuasion not feel a sympathy for the attack on another's beliefs? Or from the other view, can a scientist tolerate the misrepresentation of what science is, and what its knowledges are? And from another view, is it wise to allow certain specific doctrines of particular religions to enter public education, there to be taught as though they were science to the youngsters of other faiths, the tenets of whose faith may be diametrically opposed to the doctrines taught.
In Part 1 of this series the focus was on man as a whole and his relationship to the spiritual world. In this part we want to expand the treatment of the memory given in Part 1, and touch on sensation, imagination and reason as mental processes. The treatment of these is necessarily brief, and suffers deficiencies on that account. But it provides an essential link to our later consideration of questions central to the study of how and what we know.
A brief explanation must be offered to recipients of the new translation of Arcana Caelestia as to why the title contains the diphthong -ae- rather than -oe-, as in previous editions.