按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
The intellectualism in religion which I wish to discredit
pretends to be something altogether different from this。 It
assumes to construct religious objects out of the resources of
logical reason alone； or of logical reason drawing rigorous
inference from non…subjective facts。 It calls its conclusions
dogmatic theology； or philosophy of the absolute； as the case may
be； it does not call them science of religions。 It reaches them
in an a priori way； and warrants their veracity。
Warranted systems have ever been the idols of aspiring souls。
All…inclusive； yet simple； noble； clean； luminous； stable；
rigorous； true；what more ideal refuge could there be than such
a system would offer to spirits vexed by the muddiness and
accidentality of the world of sensible things？ Accordingly； we
find inculcated in the theological schools of to…day； almost as
much as in those of the fore…time； a disdain for merely possible
or probable truth； and of results that only private assurance can
grasp。 Scholastics and idealists both express this disdain。
Principal John Caird； for example； writes as follows in his
Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion：
〃Religion must indeed be a thing of the heart； but in order to
elevate it from the region of subjective caprice and waywardness；
and to distinguish between that which is true and false in
religion； we must appeal to an objective standard。 That which
enters the heart must first be discerned by the intelligence to
be TRUE。 It must be seen as having in its own nature a RIGHT to
dominate feeling； and as constituting the principle by which
feeling must be judged。＇289＇ In estimating the religious
character of individuals； nations； or races； the first question
is； not how they feel； but what they think and believenot
whether their religion is one which manifests itself in emotions；
more or less vehement and enthusiastic； but what are the
CONCEPTIONS of God and divine things by which these emotions are
called forth。 Feeling is necessary in religion； but it is by the
CONTENT or intelligent basis of a religion； and not by feeling；
that its character and worth are to be determined。〃＇290＇
＇289＇ Op。 cit。； p。 174； abridged。
＇290＇ Ibid。； p。 186； abridged and italicized。
Cardinal Newman； in his work； The Idea of a University； gives
more emphatic expression still to this disdain for
sentiment。＇291＇ Theology； he says； is a science in the strictest
sense of the word。 I will tell you； he says； what it is not
not 〃physical evidences〃 for God； not 〃natural religion；〃 for
these are but vague subjective interpretations：
＇291＇ Discourse II。 Section 7。
〃If；〃 he continues； 〃the Supreme Being is powerful or skillful；
just so far as the telescope shows power； or the microscope shows
skill； if his moral law is to be ascertained simply by the
physical processes of the animal frame； or his will gathered from
the immediate issues of human affairs； if his Essence is just as
high and deep and broad as the universe and no more if this be
the fact； then will I confess that there is no specific science
about God； that theology is but a name； and a protest in its
behalf an hypocrisy。 Then； pious as it is to think of Him while
the pageant of experiment or abstract reasoning passes by； still
such piety is nothing more than a poetry of thought； or an
ornament of language； a certain view taken of Nature which one
man has and another has not； which gifted minds strike out； which
others see to be admirable and ingenious； and which all would be
the better for adopting。 It is but the theology of Nature； just
as we talk of the PHILOSOPHY or the ROMANCE of history； or the
POETRY of childhood； or the picturesque or the sentimental or the
humorous； or any other abstract quality which the genius or the
caprice of the individual； or the fashion of the day； or the
consent of the world； recognizes in any set of objects which are
subjected to its contemplation。 I do not see much difference
between avowing that there is no God； and implying that nothing
definite can be known for certain about Him。〃
What I mean by Theology； continues Newman； is none of these
things： 〃I simply mean the SCIENCE OF GOD； or the truths we know
about God； put into a system； just as we have a science of the
stars and call it astronomy； or of the crust of the earth and
call it geology。〃
In both these extracts we have the issue clearly set before us：
Feeling valid only for the individual is pitted against reason
valid universally。 The test is a perfectly plain one of fact。
Theology based on pure reason must in point of fact convince men
universally。 If it did not； wherein would its superiority
consist？ If it only formed sects and schools； even as sentiment
and mysticism form them； how would it fulfill its programme of
freeing us from personal caprice and waywardness？ This perfectly
definite practical test of the pretensions of philosophy to found
religion on universal reason simplifies my procedure to…day。 I
need not discredit philosophy by laborious criticism of its
arguments。 It will suffice if I show that as a matter of history
it fails to prove its pretension to be 〃objectively〃 convincing。
In fact； philosophy does so fail。 It does not banish
differences； it founds schools and sects just as feeling does。 I
believe； in fact； that the logical reason of man operates in this
field of divinity exactly as it has always operated in love； or
in patriotism； or in politics； or in any other of the wider
affairs of life； in which our passions or our mystical intuitions
fix our beliefs beforehand。 It finds arguments for our
conviction； for indeed it HAS to find them。 It amplifies and
defines our faith； and dignifies it and lends it words and
plausibility。 It hardly ever engenders it； it cannot now secure
it。＇292＇
＇292＇ As regards the secondary character of intellectual
constructions； and the primacy of feeling and instinct in
founding religious beliefs see the striking work of H。 Fielding；
The Hearts of Men； London； 1902； which came into my hands after
my text was written。 〃Creeds；〃 says the author； 〃are the grammar
of religion； they are to religion what grammar is to speech。
Words are the expression of our wants grammar is the theory
formed afterwards。 Speech never proceeded from grammar； but the
reverse。 As speech progresses and changes from unknown causes；
grammar must follow〃 （p。 313）。 The whole book； which keeps
unusually c