lectures14+15-第2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！





definition　of　a　deity　implies；　we　end　by　deeming　that　deity



incredible。







Few　historic　changes　are　more　curious　than　these　mutations　of



theological　opinion。　　The　monarchical　type　of　sovereignty　was；



for　example；　so　ineradicably　planted　in　the　mind　of　our　own



forefathers　that　a　dose　of　cruelty　and　arbitrariness　in　their



deity　seems　positively　to　have　been　required　by　their



imagination。　　They　called　the　cruelty　〃retributive　justice；〃　and



a　God　without　it　would　certainly　have　struck　them　as　not



〃sovereign〃　enough。　　But　today　we　abhor　the　very　notion　of



eternal　suffering　inflicted；　and　that　arbitrary　dealing…out　of



salvation　and　damnation　to　selected　individuals；　of　which



Jonathan　Edwards　could　persuade　himself　that　he　had　not　only　a



conviction；　but　a　〃delightful　conviction；〃　as　of　a　doctrine



〃exceeding　pleasant；　bright；　and　sweet；〃　appears　to　us；　if



sovereignly　anything；　sovereignly　irrational　and　mean。　　Not　only



the　cruelty；　but　the　paltriness　of　character　of　the　gods　believed



in　by　earlier　centuries　also　strikes　later　centuries　with



surprise。　　We　shall　see　examples　of　it　from　the　annals　of



Catholic　saintship　which　makes　us　rub　our　Protestant　eyes。　



Ritual　worship　in　general　appears　to　the　modern



transcendentalist；　as　well　as　to　the　ultra…puritanic　type　of



mind；　as　if　addressed　to　a　deity　of　an　almost　absurdly　childish



character；　taking　delight　in　toy…shop　furniture；　tapers　and



tinsel；　costume　and　mumbling　and　mummery；　and　finding　his　〃glory〃



incomprehensibly　enhanced　thereby：just　as　on　the　other　hand　the



formless　spaciousness　of　pantheism　appears　quite　empty　to



ritualistic　natures；　and　the　gaunt　theism　of　evangelical　sects



seems　intolerably　bald　and　chalky　and　bleak。







Luther；　says　Emerson；　would　have　cut　off　his　right　hand　rather



than　nail　his　theses　to　the　door　at　Wittenberg；　if　he　had



supposed　that　they　were　destined　to　lead　to　the　pale　negations　of



Boston　Unitarianism。







So　far；　then；　although　we　are　compelled；　whatever　may　be　our



pretensions　to　empiricism；　to　employ　some　sort　of　a　standard　of



theological　probability　of　our　own　whenever　we　assume　to　estimate



the　fruits　of　other　men's　religion；　yet　this　very　standard　has



been　begotten　out　of　the　drift　of　common　life。　　It　is　the　voice



of　human　experience　within　us；　judging　and　condemning　all　gods



that　stand　athwart　the　pathway　along　which　it　feels　itself　to　be



advancing。　　Experience；　if　we　take　it　in　the　largest　sense；　is



thus　the　parent　of　those　disbeliefs　which；　it　was　charged；　were



inconsistent　with　the　experiential　method。　　The　inconsistency；



you　see；　is　immaterial；　and　the　charge　may　be　neglected。







If　we　pass　from　disbeliefs　to　positive　beliefs；　it　seems　to　me



that　there　is　not　even　a　formal　inconsistency　to　be　laid　against



our　method。　　The　gods　we　stand　by　are　the　gods　we　need　and　can



use；　the　gods　whose　demands　on　us　are　reinforcements　of　our



demands　on　ourselves　and　on　one　another。　What　I　then　propose　to



do　is；　briefly　stated；　to　test　saintliness　by　common　sense；　to



use　human　standards　to　help　us　decide　how　far　the　religious　life



commends　itself　as　an　ideal　kind　of　human　activity。　　If　it



commends　itself；　then　any　theological　beliefs　that　may　inspire



it；　in　so　far　forth　will　stand　accredited。　　If　not；　then　they



will　be　discredited；　and　all　without　reference　to　anything　but



human　working　principles。　　It　is　but　the　elimination　of　the



humanly　unfit；　and　the　survival　of　the　humanly　fittest；　applied



to　religious　beliefs；　and　if　we　look　at　history　candidly　and



without　prejudice；　we　have　to　admit　that　no　religion　has　ever　in



the　long　run　established　or　proved　itself　in　any　other　way。　



Religions　have　APPROVED　themselves；　they　have　ministered　to



sundry　vital　needs　which　they　found　reigning。　　When　they　violated



other　needs　too　strongly；　or　when　other　faiths　came　which　served



the　same　needs　better；　the　first　religions　were　supplanted。







The　needs　were　always　many；　and　the　tests　were　never　sharp。　　So



the　reproach　of　vagueness　and　subjectivity　and　〃on　the



whole〃…ness；　which　can　with　perfect　legitimacy　be　addressed　to



the　empirical　method　as　we　are　forced　to　use　it；　is　after　all　a



reproach　to　which　the　entire　life　of　man　in　dealing　with　these



matters　is　obnoxious。　　No　religion　has　ever　yet　owed　its



prevalence　to　〃apodictic　certainty。〃　　　　In　a　later　lecture　I　will



ask　whether　objective　certainty　can　ever　be　added　by　theological



reasoning　to　a　religion　that　already　empirically　prevails。







One　word；　also；　about　the　reproach　that　in　following　this　sort　of



an　empirical　method　we　are　handing　ourselves　over　to　systematic



skepticism。







Since　it　is　impossible　to　deny　secular　alterations　in　our



sentiments　and　needs；　it　would　be　absurd　to　affirm　that　one's　own



age　of　the　world　can　be　beyond　correction　by　the　next　age。　



Skepticism　cannot；　therefore；　be　ruled　out　by　any　set　of　thinkers



as　a　possibility　against　which　their　conclusions　are　secure；　and



no　empiricist　ought　to　claim　exemption　from　this　universal



liability。　　But　to　admit　one's　liability　to　correction　is　one



thing；　and　to　embark　upon　a　sea　of　wanton　doubt　is　another。　　Of



willfully　playing　into　the　hands　of　skepticism　we　cannot　be



accused。　　He　who　acknowledges　the　imperfectness　of　his



instrument；　and　makes　allowance　　for　it　in　discussing　his



observations；　is　in　a　much　better　position　for　gaining　truth　than



if　he　claimed　his　instrument　to　be　infallible。　　Or　is　dogmatic　or



scholastic　theology　less　doubted　in　point　of　fact　for　claiming；



as　it　does；　to　be　in　point　of　right　undoubtable？　　And　if　not；



what　command　over　truth　would　this　kind　of　theology　really　lose



if；　instead　of　absolute　certainty；　she　only　claimed　reasonable



probability　for　her　conclusions？　　If　WE　claim　only　reasonable



probability；　it　will　be　as　much　as　men　who　love　the　truth　can



ever　at　any　given　moment　hope　to　have　within　their　grasp。　Pretty



surely　it　will　be　more　than　we　could　have　had；　if　we　were



unconscious　of　our　liability　to　err。







Nevertheless；　dogmatism　will　doubtless　continue　to　condemn　us　for



this　confession。　　The　mere　outward　form　of　inalterable　certainty



is　so　precious　to　some　minds　that　to　renounce　it　explicitly　is



for　them　out　of　the　question。　　They　will　claim　it　even　where　the



facts　most　patently　pronounce　its　folly。　　But　the　safe　thing　is



surely　to　recognize　that　all　the　insights　of　creatures　of　a　day



like　ourselves　must　be　provisional。　The　wisest　of　critics　is　an



altering　being；　subject　to　the　better　insight　of　the　morrow；　and



right　at　any　moment；　only　〃up　to　date〃　and　〃on　th