If these two positions can be defended with any success, it is obvious that the whole theory of the Science of Religion will need to be reconsidered.  But it is no less evident that our two positions do not depend on each other.  The first may be regarded as fantastic, or improbable, or may be ‘masked’ and left on one side.  But the strength of the second position, derived from evidence of a different character, will not, therefore, be in any way impaired.  Our first position can only be argued for by dint of evidence highly unpopular in character, and, as a general rule, condemned by modern science.  The evidence is obtained by what is, at all events, a legitimate anthropological proceeding.  We may follow Mr. Tylor’s example, and collect savage beliefs about visions, hallucinations, ‘clairvoyance,’ and the acquisition of knowledge apparently not attainable through the normal channels of sense.  We may then compare these savage beliefs with attested records of similar experiences among living and educated civilised men.  Even if we attain to no conclusion, or a negative conclusion, as to the actuality and supernormal character of the alleged experiences, still to compare data of savage and civilised psychology, or even of savage and civilised illusions and fables, is decidedly part, though a neglected part, of the function of anthropological science.  The results, whether they do or do not strengthen our first position, must be curious and instructive, if only as a chapter in the history of human error.  That chapter, too, is concerned with no mean topic, but with what we may call the X region of our nature.  Out of that region, out of miracle, prophecy, vision, have certainly come forth the great religions, Christianity and Islam; and the great religious innovators and leaders, our Lord Himself, St. Francis, John Knox, Jeanne d’Arc, down to the founder of the new faith of the Sioux and Arapahoe.  It cannot, then, be unscientific to compare the barbaric with the civilised beliefs and experiences about a region so dimly understood, and so fertile in potent influences.  Here the topic will be examined rather by the method of anthropology than of psychology.  We may conceivably have something to learn (as has been the case before) from the rough observations and hasty inferences of the most backward races.

We may illustrate this by an anecdote: 

’The Northern Indians call the Aurora Borealis “Edthin,” that is “Deer.”  Their ideas in this respect are founded on a principle one would not imagine.  Experience has shown them that when a hairy deer-skin is briskly stroked with the hand on a dark night, it will emit many sparks of electrical fire.’

So says Hearne in his ‘Journey,’ published in 1795 (p. 346).