太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > lecture18 >

第2节

lecture18-第2节

小说: lecture18 字数: 每页4000字

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!






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 close to concrete facts; is little more than an



amplification of this text。















Lend me your attention while I run through some of the points of



the older systematic theology。  You find them in both Protestant



and Catholic manuals; best of all in the innumerable text…books



published since Pope Leo's Encyclical recommending the study of



Saint Thomas。  I glance first at the arguments by which dogmatic



theology establishes God's existence; after that at those by



which it establishes his nature。'293'







'293' For convenience' sake; I follow the order of A。 Stockl's



Lehrbuch der Philosophie; 5te Autlage; Mainz; 1881; Band ii。  B。 



Boedder's Natural Theology; London; 1891; is a handy English



Catholic Manual; but an almost identical doctrine is given by



such Protestant theologians as C。 Hodge:  Systematic Theology;



New York; 1873; or A。 H。 Strong:  Systematic Theology; 5th



edition; New York; 1896。















The arguments for God's existence have stood for hundreds of



years with the waves of unbelieving criticism breaking against



them; never totally discrediting them in the ears of the



faithful; but on the whole slowly and surely washing out the



mortar from between their joints。  If you have a God already whom



you believe in; these arguments confirm you。 If you are



atheistic; they fail to set you right。  The proofs are various。 



The 〃cosmological〃 one; so…called; reasons from the contingence



of the world to a First Cause which must contain whatever



perfections the world itself contains。  The 〃argument



from design〃 reasons; from the fact that Nature's laws are



mathematical; and her parts benevolently adapted to each other;



that this cause is both intellectual and benevolent。 The 〃moral



argument〃 is that the moral law presupposes a lawgiver。  The



〃argument ex consensu gentium〃 is that the belief in God is so



widespread as to be grounded in the rational nature of man; and



should therefore carry authority with it。







As I just said; I will not discuss these arguments technically。



The bare fact that all idealists since Kant have felt entitled



either to scout or to neglect them shows that they are not solid



enough to serve as religion's all…sufficient foundation。 



Absolutely impersonal reasons would be in duty bound to show more



general convincingness。  Causation is indeed too obscure a



principle to bear the weight of the whole structure of theology。 



As for the argument from design; see how Darwinian ideas have



revolutionized it。  Conceived as we now conceive them; as so many



fortunate escapes from almost limitless processes of destruction;



the benevolent adaptations which we find in Nature suggest a



deity very different from the one who figured in the earlier



versions of the argument。'294' The fact is that these arguments 



do but follow the combined suggestions of the facts and of our



feeling。  They prove nothing rigorously。  They only corroborate



our preexistent partialities。







'294' It must not be forgotten that any form of DISorder in the



world might; by the design argument; suggest a God for just that



kind of disorder。  The truth is that any state of things whatever



that can be named is logically susceptible of teleological



interpretation。 The ruins of the earthquake at Lisbon; for



example:  the whole of past history had to be planned exactly as



it was to bring about in the fullness of time just that



particular arrangement of debris of masonry; furniture; and once



living bodies。  No other train of causes would have been



sufficient。  And so of any other arrangement; bad or good; which



might as a matter of fact be found resulting anywhere from



previous conditions。  To avoid such p

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的