shorter logic-第39部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


fact　of　the　consciousness　of　all；　and　even　passed　off　for　the　very　nature　of
consciousness。　

Among　the　so…called　proofs　of　the　existence　of　God；　there　used　to　stand　the
consensus　gentium；　to　which　appeal　is　made　as　early　as　Cicero。　The　consensus
gentium　is　a　weighty　authority；　and　the　transition　is　easy　and　natural；　from　the
circumstance　that　a　certain　fact　is　found　in　the　consciousness　of　every　one　to　the
conclusion　that　it　is　a　necessary　element　in　the　very　nature　of　consciousness。　In
this　category　of　general　agreement　there　was　latent　the　deep…rooted　perception；
which　does　not　escape　even　the　least　cultivated　mind；　that　the　consciousness　of
the　individual　is　at　the　same　time　particular　and　accidental。　Yet　unless　we　examine
the　nature　of　this　consciousness　itself；　stripping　it　of　its　particular　and　accidental
elements　and；　by　the　toilsome　operation　of　reflection　disclosing　the　universal　in　its
entirety　and　purity；　it　is　only　a　unanimous　agreement　upon　a　given　point　that　can
authorise　a　decent　presumption　that　that　point　is　part　of　the　very　nature　of
consciousness。　

Of　course；　if　thought　insists　on　seeing　the　necessity　of　what　is　presented　as　a　fact
of　general　occurrence；　the　consensus　gentium　is　certainly　not　sufficient。　Yet　even
granting　the　universality　of　the　fact　to　be　a　satisfactory　proof；　it　has　been　found
impossible　to　establish　the　belief　in　God　on　such　an　argument；　because　experience
shows　that　there　are　individuals　and　nations　without　any　such　faith。　

　　　　　In　order　to　judge　of　the　greater　or　less　extent　to　which　Experience　shows　cases　of　Atheism　or　of
　　　　　the　belief　in　God；　it　is　all…important　to　know　if　the　mere　general　conception　of　deity　suffices；　or　if
　　　　　a　more　definite　knowledge　of　God　is　required。　The　Christian　world　would　certainly　refuse　the
　　　　　title　of　God　to　the　idols　of　the　Hindus　and　the　Chinese；　to　the　fetishes　of　the　Africans；　and　even
　　　　　to　the　gods　of　Greece　themselves。　If　so；　a　believer　in　these　idols　would　not　be　a　believer　in　God。
　　　　　If　it　were　contended；　on　the　other　hand；　that　such　a　belief　in　idols　implies　some　sort　of　belief　in
　　　　　God；　as　the　species　implies　the　genus；　then　idolatry　would　argue　not　faith　in　an　idol　merely；　but
　　　　　faith　in　God。　The　Athenians　took　an　opposite　view。　The　poets　and　philosophers　who　explained
　　　　　Zeus　to　be　a　cloud；　and　maintained　that　there　was　only　one　God；　were　treated　as　atheists　at
　　　　　Athens。　

　　　　　The　danger　in　these　questions　lies　in　looking　at　what　the　mind　may　make　out　of　an　object；　and
　　　　　not　what　that　object　actually　and　explicitly　is。　If　we　fail　to　note　this　distinction；　the　commonest
　　　　　perceptions　of　men's　senses　will　be　religion：　for　every　such　perception；　and　indeed　every　act　of
　　　　　mind；　implicitly　contains　the　principle　which；　when　it　is　purified　and　developed；　rises　to　religion。
　　　　　But　to　be　capable　of　religion　is　one　thing；　to　have　it　another。　And　religion　yet　implicit　is　only　a
　　　　　capacity　or　a　possibility。　

　　　　　Thus　in　modern　times；　travellers　have　found　tribes　（as　Captains　Ross　and　Parry　found　the
　　　　　Esquimaux）　which；　as　they　tell　us；　have　not　even　that　small　modicum　of　religion　possessed　by
　　　　　African　sorcerers；　the　goetes　of　Herodotus。　On　the　other　hand；　an　Englishman；　who　spent　the
　　　　　first　months　of　the　last　Jubilee　at　Rome；　says；　in　his　account　of　the　modern　Romans；　that　the
　　　　　common　people　are　bigots；　whilst　those　who　can　read　and　write　are　atheists　to　a　man。　

　　　　　The　charge　of　Atheism　is　seldom　heard　in　modern　times：　principally　because　the　facts　and　the
　　　　　requirements　of　religion　are　reduced　to　a　minimum。　（See　§　73。）　

But　there　can　be　nothing　shorter　and　more　convenient　than　to　have　the　bare
assertion　to　make；　that　we　discover　a　fact　in　our　consciousness；　and　are　certain
that　it　is　true：　and　to　declare　that　this　certainty；　instead　of　proceeding　from　our
particular　mental　constitution　only；　belongs　to　the　very　nature　of　the　mind。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§72

A　second　corollary　which　results　from　holding　immediacy　of　consciousness　to　be
the　criterion　of　truth　is　that　all　superstition　or　idolatry　is　allowed　to　be　truth；　and
that　an　apology　is　prepared　for　any　contents　of　the　will；　however　wrong　and
immoral。　It　is　because　he　believes　in　them；　and　not　from　the　reasoning　and
syllogism　of　what　is　termed　mediate　knowledge；　that　the　Hindu　finds　God　in　the
cow；　the　monkey；　the　Brahmin；　or　the　Lama。　But；　the　natural　desires　and
affections　spontaneously　carry　and　deposit　their　interests　in　consciousness；　where
also　immoral　aims　make　themselves　naturally　at　home：　the　good　or　bad　character
would　thus　express　the　definite　being　of　the　will；　which　would　be　known；　and
that　most　immediately；　in　the　interests　and　aims。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§73

Thirdly　and　lastly；　the　immediate　consciousness　of　God　goes　no　further　than　to
tell　us　that　he　is：　to　tell　us　what　he　is　would　be　an　act　of　cognition；　involving
mediation。　So　that　God　as　an　object　of　religion　is　expressly　narrowed　down　to　the
indeterminate　supersensible；　God　in　general：　and　the　significance　of　religion　is
reduced　to　a　minimum。　

If　it　were　really　needful　to　win　back　and　secure　the　bare　belief　that　there　is　a　God；
or　even　to　create　it；　we　might　well　wonder　at　the　poverty　of　the　age　which　can
see　a　gain　in　the　merest　pittance　of　religious　consciousness；　and　which　in　its
church　has　sunk　so　low　as　to　worship　at　the　altar　that　stood　in　Athens　long　ago；
dedicated　to　the　'Unknown　God'。　



　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　§74

We　have　still　briefly　to　indicate　the　general　nature　of　the　form　of　immediacy。　For
it　is　the　essential　one…sidedness　of　the　category　which　makes　whatever　comes
under　it　one…sided　and；　for　that　reason；　finite。　And；　first；　it　makes　the　universal　no
better　than　an　abstraction　external　to　the　particulars；　and　God　a　being　without
determinate　quality。　But　God　can　only　be　called　a　spirit　when　he　is　known　to　be
at　once　the　beginning　and　end；　as　well　as　the　mean；　in　the　process　of　mediation。
Without　this　unification　of　elements　he　is　neither　concrete；　nor　living；　nor　a　spirit。
Thus　the　knowledge　of　God　as　a　spirit　necessarily　implies　mediation。　The　form　of
immediacy；　secondly；　invests　the　particular　with　the　character　of　independent　or
self…centred　being。　But　such　predicates　contradict　the　very　essence　of　the
particular…which　is　to　be　referred　to　something　else　outside。　They　thus　invest　the
finite　with　the　character　of　an　absolute。　But；　besides；　the　form　of　immediacy　is
altogether　abstract：　it　has　no　preference　for　one　set　of　contents　more　than
another；　but　is　equally　susceptible　of　all：　it　may　as　well　sanction　what　is　idolatrous
and　immoral　as　the　reverse。　Only　when　we　discern　that　the　content…the　particular
…　is　not　self…subsistent；　but　derivative　from　something　else；　are　its　finitude　and
untruth　shown　in　their　proper　light。　Such　discernment；　where　the　content　we
discern　carries　with　it　the　ground　of　its　dependent　nature；　is　a　knowledge　which
involves　mediation。　The　only　content　which　can　be　held　to　be　the　truth　is　one　not
mediated　with　something　else；　not　limited　by　other　things：　or；　otherwise
e