Post on 06-Apr-2023
Olearcek 1
The Final Problem: Sherlock Holmes and the Science/Faith Debate
Sherlock Holmes is the pinnacle of rational thought. His
ability to take note of minute details and arrange them into
subsequent deductions is unparalleled between the bindings of
literature and beyond. Scarce is the mind that can match him in
analytical reasoning. Constantly he is being directed outward,
tracing back steps that led to a singular event and apprehending
the architect. Within the confines of this paper, however, Holmes
will find a unique client: rather than a plea for help from the
darkest depths of London or the farthest reaches of the moors, he
will be asked to point his powers of perception inward and
upward. What is Holmes’ opinion of that which is beyond this
life, the finite existence he understands and unravels so well?
Is he a paradigm case of the unrelenting scientist, swayed only
by evidence? Is he a simple study in skepticism, or is there any
sign of faith within the Great Detective? Contrary to the
reader’s intuition, Holmes is not a standard bearer for atheism;
while his method is scientific in nature, his motive can hardly
be viewed in scientific terms. Sherlock Holmes is not the cold,
Olearcek 2
calculating machine that many present him to be, but is, in fact,
a character rooted in morals with an innate sense of justice that
is more compatible with religion than with the science he holds
so dear.
Throughout the escapades of Conan Doyle’s famous detective
there are few explicit references to matters of religion. A few
phrases and passing comments are found, but it is possible that
they are simply within the vocabulary of Victorian England, a
time in which religion still weighed large in the public
consciousness. In “The Adventure of Thor Bridge,” having heard
the account of one Miss Grace Dunbar, Holmes replies, “With the
help of the god of justice I will give you a case which will make
England ring” (Doyle, Vol. II, pg. 597). Hardly evidence for Holmes
the theist, but the poetic reference to divine aid while pursuing
the lady’s cause does, at least, show Holmes using religious
terminology. Holmes references the antithesis of his “god of
justice” in chapter three of The Hound of the Baskervilles. While also
displaying an uncharacteristic check on his ego, he shows,
somewhat flippantly, a comprehension of Satan. ““I have hitherto
confined my investigations to this world,” said he. “In a modest
Olearcek 3
way I have combated evil, but to take on the Father of Evil
himself would, perhaps, be too ambitious a task”” (Doyle, Vol. I,
pg. 590). As Holmes and Watson close in on the hound and its
master, the novel’s climax is peppered with intercessions and
invocations to “God.” First Holmes utters thanks to “God” when
Sir Henry Baskerville finally clears the mist, laying the trap
for his would-be murderer, Stapleton. After killing the hound as
it attacked Sir Henry, Holmes “breathed a prayer of gratitude”
(Vol. I, pg. 684) upon realizing that his client was unharmed.
Whether this prayer was directed to a deity or a simple
convention of Victorian sensibilities is a moot point, however,
in his article “Was Sherlock Holmes a Calvinist?”, Paul Tambrino
states that the very idea of Sherlock Holmes breathing a prayer
is significant. As the narrative reaches its zenith so too do the
religious references. Sir Henry makes an explicit mention of the
Deity in his exclamation of fear upon seeing the hound: ““My
God!” he whispered. “What is it? What, in heavens name, was it””
(Vol. I, pg. 684)? Mrs. Stapleton, upon hearing that Sir Henry was
safe from the diabolical schemes of her husband, professes thanks
to “God.” Both instances, in fact all the previous quotes, merely
Olearcek 4
break the pane that guarded the theory that religion was
nonexistent within the Holmes canon. They do not posit any
evidence towards Holmes’ interaction with any form of religion,
but solely provide that religious language was being utilized in
conversation within the stories. It is highly possible, even
probable, that this was due to the cultural and chronological
context of Dr. Watson’s narratives. Nineteenth century Britain is
far removed from the present day secularization in regards to
public familiarity with religious references. Further analysis is
needed to determine Holmes’ religious experience and
understanding.
Scattered throughout the chronicles of Dr. Watson are pieces
of evidence that suggest, surpassing the familiarity with
contemporary religious references in everyday language, Holmes
does indeed have a knowledge of both Christian Scripture and
other religions. Although, in his first acquaintance with Holmes,
Dr. Watson compiled a very unflattering assessment of Holmes’
knowledge in the disciplines of both Literature and Philosophy,
it can be gleaned from the text that this was a premature
evaluation of Holmes’ “limits” as Dr. Watson referred to them.
Olearcek 5
Contrary to Dr. Watson’s first assumption, Holmes shows a
remarkable knowledge of literature; for one who only retains that
which aids him in his profession as a consulting detective, the
works of Alexander Pope seem of little use in solving crime, yet
Holmes can quote from them like an adept student. In The Sign of
Four, Holmes speaks “on a quick succession of subjects - on
miracle plays, on medieval pottery, on Stradivarius violins, on
the Buddhism of Ceylon, and on warships of the future - handling
each as though he had made a special study of it” (Vol. I, pg.
157). That Holmes gives the impression of making special studies
of such topics, specifically miracle plays of the Christian
tradition and Ceylonese Buddhism, is striking. He also reveals a
proficient knowledge of Christian Scripture, which would seem to
take up valuable space in his “mind palace,” yet in “The
Adventure of the Speckled Band,” Holmes reserves a Scriptural
utterance for the final exposé of his case. Upon being confronted
with Dr. Roylott’s unorthodox murder weapon, the “speckled band”
that would give the story its namesake, the following Biblical
allusion is made, of which only the astute Biblical scholar would
recognize in passing. ““It is a swamp adder!” cried Holmes; “the
Olearcek 6
deadliest snake in India. … Violence does, in truth, recoil upon
the violent, and the schemer falls into the pit which he digs for
another”” (Vol. I, pg. 324). This is a fitting paraphrase from the
book of Ecclesiastes: “He that diggeth a pit shall fall into it;
and whoso breaketh an hedge, a serpent shall bite him” (King James
Version, Ecclesiastes 10:8).
Holmes shows equal acquaintance with New Testament literature,
quoting the Gospel of Matthew as he assuages Dr. Watson’s
apprehension as to the state of their case in chapter thirteen of
The Hound of the Baskervilles. “Sufficient for tomorrow is the evil
thereof; but I hope before the day is past to have the upper hand
at last” (Vol. I, pg. 673). Compare: “Take therefore no thought for
the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of
itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof” (KJV, Matt.
6:34). At the culmination of his investigation into the death of
one Col. James Barclay, Holmes says himself that his lack of
Biblical knowledge hindered him in wrapping up the case, yet he
sums up the story of Uriah the Hittite quite concisely in
connection with the recent affair.
Olearcek 7
“There’s one thing,” said I as we walked down to the
station. “If the husband’s name was James, and the
other was Henry, what was this talk about David?”
“That one word, my dear Watson, should have told me the
whole story had I been the ideal reasoner which you are
so fond of depicting. It was evidently a term of
reproach.”
“Of reproach?”
“Yes; David strayed a little occasionally, you know,
and on one occasion in the same direction as Sergeant
James Barclay. You remember the small affair of Uriah
and Bathsheba? My Biblical knowledge is a trifle rusty,
I fear, but you will find the story in the first or
second of Samuel”” (Vol. II, pg. 503).
This quote has two-fold significance, showing that Holmes has
both a prior education in Biblical studies and felt the quote
valuable enough, along with the previous examples of his
knowledge of Scripture, to retain for future use, albeit rarely
called upon. But as to the state of his personal beliefs, these
Olearcek 8
quotes shed little light. Evidence of Holmes’ faith must be found
elsewhere.
The record of Holmes’ initial entrance into his singular
profession as a consulting detective is recorded in the short
story, “The ‘Gloria Scott.’” He became acquainted with Victor
Trevor while at university, having been made lame by his terrier,
who had latched onto Holmes’ ankle “as I went down to chapel”
(Vol. I, pg. 447). Having grown close to Trevor during his period
of healing, Holmes becomes wrapped up in a family affair,
deducing the nature of Trevor’s father’s previous life, and the
blackmailer intent on returning the past to him. Tambrino asserts
in his article that regardless of whether it was mandatory or
simply encouraged at his institution of study, the fact of
Holmes’ chapel attendance gives quite a background to the
previous evidence given for his Scriptural knowledge. It is
interesting to ponder the idea of Holmes’ line of work being
initiated by an act of Divine intervention while on his way to
worship, conceived in the unlikely agent of Trevor’s terrier;
whether it is possible that Holmes would entertain that view
remains to be seen.
Olearcek 9
Built upon the startling evidence found within the pages of
Dr. Watson’s records, it has been established that Holmes is not
as religiously barren as some would think. However, there is a
seeming disparity between his rigid principles of scientific
deduction and the concept of religious faith, a disparity that
must be assuaged if any case is to be made of Holmes’ sense of
the latter. Can one who employs such a stringent scientific
method in the pursuit of crime also entertain a faith of
spiritual and religious nature? Sifting through the text with a
careful eye, one could construct the argument that Holmes’
“science of deduction” is not in contradiction with a sense of
faith. Rather than containing a contradiction, Holmes’ singular
method of scientific observation aids in the establishment of his
sense of belief. In A Study in Scarlet, Holmes remarks in an academic
publication on the topic of his singular method: “From a drop of
water, … a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or
a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So
all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever
we are shown a single link of it” (Vol. I, pg.17). In his article
Tambrino states the possibility that Holmes himself would argue,
Olearcek 10
if he were inclined to ponder the existence of a deity, proof
could be ascertained by the simple study of the world, through
which evidence could be gained of its Intelligent Designer,
outside of Divine revelation. Rather than defeating the notion,
Holmes’ deductive processes can be used in an effort to logically
substantiate the existence of a supreme being (Tambrino,
paragraph 22). He explicitly states this in “The Naval Treaty.”
““There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary
as in religion,” said he, leaning with his back against
the shutters. “It can be built up as an exact science
by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness
of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All
other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are
all really necessary for our existence in the first
instance. But this rose, is an extra. Its smell and its
colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of
it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I
say again that we have much to hope from the flowers””
(Vol. I, pg. 541).
Olearcek 11
These are not the thoughts of a religious rejectionist, but a
character who applies his gift of observational insight in every
encounter and discipline he is presented with. Holmes’ method
does not disprove the concept of faith; he himself states that it
lends itself as the foundational cornerstone to religious belief.
Pushing past the quotes and comments uttered by Holmes
throughout the stories, his scientific methods and deductive
processes drive home further the claim that he harbors a sense of
faith. It is true that at the outset of every mystery Holmes does
not seek to rid the world of injustice, and he often circumvents
the official force with unorthodox, even paradoxically illegal,
activities to bring a conclusion to his case. His crusade against
crime, though carried out with religious-like fever, does seem to
find its intention in his desire and need for stimulating
problems, rather than a sense of duty to a moral code or
religious faith. The crude sins of the common man, carried out by
his common mind, arouse no interest or concern in the Great
Detective. He revels in the mental exercises difficult cases
present him; they are his natural habitat, to which he constantly
longs to return. While it is selfish reasons that dictate the
Olearcek 12
appeal of each case, chasing the enjoyment of unraveling the
escapades of those unfortunate enough to find him on their trail,
he does wage war against the agents of crime. He is not the
principled superhero bent on ridding the world of evil, but a
professional detective, a consulting crime-solver that has
crafted a profession for his singular abilities “on the side of
the angels,” albeit with selfish intent. After all he is a
sleuth, not a saint.
In spite of his scientific methods, Holmes has a moral motive
in mind; in spite of character flaws he pursues justice defined
by his own code. Upon apprehension of his quarry he subjects his
opponents to a moral code, not one prepared and approved by the
official force, but one that he himself defines and compels
adherence. In “The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle,” after
extracting a confession from the culprit, Holmes allows him to
walk free, explaining to Watson that, “I suppose I am committing
a felony, but it is just as possible that I am saving a soul. …
Send him to jail now, and you make him a jailbird for life” (Vol.
I, pg. 306). Holmes cannot be viewed through the black and white
lens of science, seen as a machine that crunches out deductions
Olearcek 13
and “always gets his man.” After receiving his fix and staving
off the dull doldrums of mere existence, Holmes showcases a sense
of honor and a moral motive that science is ill-suited to
explain. In the pursuit of justice, one can never solely rely on
scientific formulae to produce results.
“If virtue is your stated pedagogical end, then you
know that methods won't help you achieve that.
Techniques don’t cultivate virtue. That’s why Socrates,
who was obsessed with the cultivation of virtue,
insisted that he didn’t teach methodologically. He
didn’t look for a science-based technique. Instead, He
let his purpose guide him, determining his every move,
directing his preparation, and forming the discussion”
(Kern, paragraph 2).
Every aspect of Holmes’ life is centered around combating
crime. He utilizes his deductive techniques to aid him in the
reduction of crime, but his moral code that he exacts upon his
opponent aids in the cultivation of its antithesis: virtue.
Holmes’ deductive techniques are reactive in nature, relative to
the crime-filled world that surrounds him; his moral code is a
Olearcek 14
proactive effort to stop repeat offenders from contributing to
the growing problem of crime.
Often throughout the stories his treatment of clients is based
on their wealth and station in society, in accordance with his
own opinion of such distinctions. “The Scandal in Bohemia”
showcases two financial tendencies of Holmes. In the beginning of
the short story he accepts from his client an enormous sum of
money as an advance for securing a compromising photograph. Given
the status of his client, who happens to be the King of Bohemia,
Holmes has no qualms in accepting a significant wage for his
service. The second tendency is shown when he refuses a final
payment from the King, having brought about a satisfactory
conclusion to his problem. Holmes refuses any payment, but
requests a token from the King: a photograph of Irene Adler who,
although of a lower station in society, is immensely higher
within Holmes’ hierarchy than the King. ““From what I have seen
of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to
your Majesty,” said Holmes coldly” (Vol. I, pg. 204). Rewards mean
little to Holmes, in comparison to a memoir of his battle of wits
with “the woman.” His antagonism towards those of wealth and
Olearcek 15
privilege is also clearly seen in “Silver Blaze,” where Holmes is
asked by a wealthy stable owner to find a missing race horse and
discover the cause of its trainer’s death. This is all in
contrast to his treatment of lower-class clients, with whom he is
much more lenient in regards to payment, thought not judgment.
Each are held equally accountable according to his deed; Holmes,
however, doesn't waste a chance to kick the economical pedestal
out from under the comfortably ensconced aristocracy. This bias
towards the downtrodden in opposition to the affluent and
powerful, in some if not most cases, is an example of Holmes
doling out judgments that align with his moral code. In an age of
income disparity and aristocratic rule, Holmes gives little
thought to the societal station of his client; often what the
world views as stalwart and upright is actually the opposite
hidden behind the mask of privilege, and vice versa, that which
the world deems repugnant and inferior is often virtue hidden to
those aristocratically aloof. Holmes cuts through societal
distinctions and shortcomings, a mannerism inconsistent with the
scientific simpleton. The aristocracy is not superior, winning
the race of natural selection; in Holmes’ eyes, they are equal to
Olearcek 16
the commoners in their shared humanity. Although steeped in
scientific knowledge, Holmes has character traits that depict him
as a man with strict morals; not polite suggestions, but codes of
behavior. But is there a genesis to these codes? A faith that
provides the catalyst for his virtuous ethics?
At the conclusion of “The Adventure of the Cardboard Box,” in
which Holmes unravels a murder mystery first viewed by the
official force as a prank, he utters this somber query: ““What is
the meaning of it, Watson?” said Holmes solemnly as he laid down
the paper. “What object is served by this circle of misery and
violence and fear? It must tend to some end, or else our universe
is ruled by chance, which is unthinkable”” (Vol. II, pg. 396). In
opposition to the stereotypical atheist, the idea of the universe
being ruled by chance is, for Holmes, “unthinkable.” What then,
does Holmes believe is the chief end of the universe? What
contains its purpose, and where is an underlying motive found?
Having escaped the clutches of Professor Moriarty and the frigid
falls that now stand as his sepulcher, in “The Adventure of the
Empty House” Holmes is on the run from Moriarty’s chief cohorts:
Olearcek 17
“The course of events in London did not run so well as
I had hoped, for the trial of the Moriarty gang left
two of its most dangerous members, my own most
vindictive enemies, at liberty. I traveled for two
years in Tibet, therefore, and amused myself by
visiting Lhassa, and spending some days with the head
lama. … I then passed through Persia, looked in at
Mecca, and paid a short but interesting visit to the
Khalifa at Khartoum, the results of which I have
communicated to the Foreign Office” (Vol. II, pg. 11).
Already dwelling on the meaning of life and the chief end for
those who dwell within it, the fact that Holmes visited a sacred
location of one of the world’s greatest religions, and spoke with
the chief representative of its political manifestation, along
with the leader of another great belief system, is awe-inspiring.
This awe is only amplified by the knowledge that Holmes’ visits
to holy sites come while on the run from certain death. The
contents of Holmes’ conversation with both the head of an Islamic
Caliphate and the head of the Buddhist faith go unrecorded in Dr.
Olearcek 18
Watson’s narrative, but it is certain they contained every ounce
of Holmes’ singular observational prowess.
Holmes has previously pondered the meaning of life, and
undoubtedly debated certain answers while visiting with
representatives of certain faith groups. In “The Adventure of the
Veiled Lodger,” he again verbalizes his discontentment with the
lack of an adequate explanation for the meaning of existence and
the suffering and pain it contains. His client is a woman who
escaped the terrible mistreatment of her husband through murder.
After deducing the nature of her predicament and encouraging her
to reveal the details of the unfortunate events, Holmes exclaims:
“Poor girl! … Poor girl! The ways of fate are indeed hard to
understand. If there is not some compensation hereafter, then the
world is a cruel jest” (Vol. II, pg. 637). After this dejected
utterance, he offers up evidence that he may indeed have an
inclination that there is a sense of governance over the
seemingly aimless nature of life.
“We had risen to go, but there was something in the
woman’s voice which arrested Holmes’ attention. He
Olearcek 19
turned swiftly upon her. “Your life is not your own,”
he said. “Keep your hands off it.”
“What use is it to anyone?”
“How can you tell? The example of patient suffering is
in itself the most precious of all lessons to an
impatient world”” (Vol. II, pg. 637).
This startling admonishment depicts the outlying edge of the
sense of faith that inhabits the Great Detective, soon to be
fleshed out with subsequent evidence. If we are not in possession
of our individual lives, who, in Holmes’ opinion, retains the
right of ownership? For the atheist, a lone inhabitant of a
secular world, ownership of his own individual life is intrinsic.
The opposite opinion, with which Holmes is in agreement, is found
not in secular circles, but within the thoughts of men of faith.
“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost
which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own”
(KJV, 1 Cor. 6:19)?
Before providing evidence of Holmes’ belief in a deity who
retains ownership over our human existence, his opinion of man
will aid in identifying our supposed Caretaker. From “The
Olearcek 20
Adventure of the Creeping Man,” Holmes enlightens us to his
opinion of man’s nature. Inquiring into the strange behavior of
one Professor Presbury, he discovers that the professor has been
self-administering a drug to aid in rejuvenation, in anticipation
of his recent engagement to a lady of substantially fewer years.
Holmes presents an opinion of the danger found in the submission
to and enhancement of the flesh, an opinion that seems more in
line with Augustine’s doctrine of total depravity rather than
Darwin’s theory of natural selection, to which he makes an
allusion. “When one tries to rise above Nature one is liable to
fall below it. The highest type of man may revert to the animal
if he leaves the straight road of destiny. … Consider, Watson,
that the material, the sensual, the worldly would all prolong
their worthless lives. The spiritual would not avoid the call to
something higher. It would be the survival of the least fit. What
sort of cesspool may not our poor world become” (Vol. II, pg. 615)?
This demonization of the flesh and the opinion of its detrimental
effects on society comes not from a man enraptured by the
scientific study of the physical world, but one who has no desire
to “avoid the call to something higher.” Holmes, beyond showing
Olearcek 21
mere favor, is of the mind that those of a spiritual nature lift
society out of its dark depths of sin and depravity. At the
conclusion of “The Boscombe Valley Mystery” Holmes exclaims: “God
help us! … Why does fate play such tricks with poor, helpless
worms? I never hear of such a case as this that I do not think of
Baxter’s words, and say, ‘There, but for the grace of God, goes
Sherlock Holmes’” (Vol. I, pg. 257). The footnote of the cited
edition states that Holmes misattributes his quote; the true
author is John Bradford, a clergyman who coined the phrase a
hundred years earlier than Holmes’ recollection, one Richard
Baxter. Regardless, the contrast between the Holmes found in this
pericope as opposed to the popular conception of Doyle’s beloved
creation is startling.
It is undeniable that Holmes harbors some sense of faith in a
higher power; the identity of it is hard to prove, but the
evidence of his vast knowledge of Christian Scripture gives great
room for speculation. Regardless of the religious tradition to
which he subscribed, it is safe to say that the man who
propagated such a crusade against crime, in a manner matched by
none, is not devoid of a sense of faith. As he states in “The
Olearcek 22
Adventure of the Retired Colourman,” when apprehending a culprit
about to take his own life: “No short cuts, Josiah Amberley.
Things must be done decently and in order” (Vol. II, pg. 659). In
reference to his methodical manner and scientific nature of
deduction, if there ever was a man who lived out the verse
alluded to in this passage, it was Sherlock Holmes. “Let all
things be done decently and in order” (KJV, I Cor. 14:40). His
ability to order events after observing their result, in an
effort to return decency and balance to a chaotic existence, is
his greatest contribution and a testament to his faith. He is
optimistic, even in the face of the pain and suffering that
surround the inhabitant of life, that God will bring about a
better world because of it. “Good old Watson! You are the one
fixed point in a changing age. There’s an east wind coming all
the same, such a wind as never blew on England yet. It will be
cold and bitter, Watson, and a good many of us may wither before
its blast. But it’s God’s own wind none the less, and a cleaner,
better, stronger land will lie in the sunshine when the storm has
cleared” (Vol. II, pg. 491).
Olearcek 23
Throughout his life Holmes sought to bring about justice to
those who wronged their fellow man, but he realized that all
answer for their deeds “at a higher court then the Assizes” (Vol.
I, pg. 257). As to who holds the gavel at Holmes’ Highest Court
can never truly be ascertained. Ever a fan for the dramatic,
however, he may have left a clue to who he believes sits in the
judgment seat before which we all appear. Presumed dead for three
years after seemingly sacrificing himself to rid the world of
Moriarty’s evil machinations, it is significant to note the
timing of his reappearance (Tambrino, paragraph 21). Resurrecting
himself before Watson one April evening, on the third year since
his supposed death, is it possible that Holmes was re-enacting an
event significant to his faith? Or was he merely showcasing his
trademark ego in his grand reveal? Herein lies a final deduction.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth (Vol. I, pg. 126).
Olearcek 24
Work Cited
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan. The Complete Sherlock Holmes: Volume 1. New
York, NY: Barnes & Noble Books, 2003. Print
Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan. The Complete Sherlock Holmes: Volume 2. New
York, NY: Barnes & Noble Books, 2003. Print
Kern, Andrew. "Letter From the President: You Are What You
Behold; and They’re Beholding You." CiRCE Magazine. N.p., 2014.
Web. <http://mag.circeinstitute.org/#>.
Tambrino, Paul A. "Was Sherlock Holmes a Calvinist?" Global Journal
of Classic Theology. Web. <http://www.phc.edu/gj_tambrinov3n2.php>.
King James Version Bible. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Print.