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.