太子爷小说网 > 英语电子书 > lecture02 >

第1节

lecture02-第1节

小说: lecture02 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!












Lecture II







CIRCUMSCRIPTION OF THE TOPIC







Most books on the philosophy of religion try to begin with a



precise definition of what its essence consists of。  Some of



these would…be definitions may possibly come before us in later



portions of this course; and I shall not be pedantic enough to



enumerate any of them to you now。 Meanwhile the very fact that



they are so many and so different from one another is enough to



prove that the word 〃religion〃 cannot stand for any single



principle or essence; but is rather a collective name。  The



theorizing mind tends always to the oversimplification of its



materials。  This is the root of all that absolutism and one…sided



dogmatism by which both philosophy and religion have been



infested。  Let us not fall immediately into a one…sided view of



our subject; but let us rather admit freely at the outset that we



may very likely find no one essence; but many characters which



may alternately be equally important to religion。  If we should



inquire for the essence of 〃government;〃 for example; one man



might tell us it was authority; another submission; an other



police; another an army; another an assembly; an other a system



of laws; yet all the while it would be true that no concrete



government can exist without all these things; one of which is



more important at one moment and others at another。  The man who



knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself



least about a definition which shall give their essence。 



Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities



in turn; he would naturally regard an abstract conception in



which these were unified as a thing more misleading than



enlightening。  And why may not religion be a conception equally



complex?'9'







'9'  I can do no better here than refer my readers to the



extended and admirable remarks on the futility of all these



definitions of religion; in an article by Professor Leuba;



published in the Monist for January; 1901; after my own text was



written。















Consider also the 〃religious sentiment〃 which we see referred to



in so many books; as if it were a single sort of mental entity。 



In the psychologies and in the philosophies of religion; we find



the authors attempting to specify just what entity it is。  One



man allies it to the feeling of dependence; one makes it a



derivative from fear; others connect it with the sexual life;



others still identify it with the feeling of the infinite; and so



on。  Such different ways of conceiving it ought of themselves to



arouse doubt as to whether it possibly can be one specific thing;



and the moment we are willing to treat the term 〃religious



sentiment〃 as a collective name for the many sentiments which



religious objects may arouse in alternation; we see that it



probably contains nothing whatever of a psychologically specific



nature。 There is religious fear; religious love; religious awe;



religious joy; and so forth。  But religious love is only man's



natural emotion of love directed to a religious object; religious



fear is only the ordinary fear of commerce; so to speak; the



common quaking of the human breast; in so far as the notion of



divine retribution may arouse it; religious awe is the same



organic thrill which we feel in a forest at twilight; or in a



mountain gorge; only this time it comes over us at the thought of



our supernatural relations; and similarly of all the various



sentiments which may be called into play in the lives of



religious persons。  As concrete states of mind; made up of a



feeling PLUS a specific sort of object; religious emotions of



course are psychic entities distinguishable from other concrete



emotions; but there is no ground for assuming a simple abstract



〃religious emotion〃 to exist as a distinct elementary mental



affection by itself; present in every religious experience



without exception。







As there thus seems to be no one elementary religious emotion;



but only a common storehouse of emotions upon which religious



objects may draw; so there might conceivably also prove to he no



one specific and essential kind of religious object; and no one



specific and essential kind of religious act。







The field of religion being as wide as this; it is manifestly



impossible that I should pretend to cover it。  My lectures must



be limited to a fraction of the subject。  And; although it would



indeed be foolish to set up an abstract definition of religion's



essence; and then proceed to defend that definition against all



comers; yet this need not prevent me from taking my own narrow



view of what religion shall consist in FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE



LECTURES; or; out of the many meanings of the word; from choosing



the one meaning in which I wish to interest you particularly; and



proclaiming arbitrarily that when I say 〃religion〃 I mean THAT。 



This; in fact; is what I must do; and I will now preliminarily



seek to mark out the field I choose。







One way to mark it out easily is to say what aspects of the



subject we leave out。  At the outset we are struck by one great



partition which divides the religious field。  On the one side of



it lies institutional; on the other personal religion。 As M。 P。



Sabatier says; one branch of religion keeps the divinity; another



keeps man most in view。  Worship and sacrifice; procedures for



working on the dispositions of the deity; theology and ceremony



and ecclesiastical organization; are the essentials of religion



in the institutional branch。 Were we to limit our view to it; we



should have to define religion as an external art; the art of



winning the favor of the gods。  In the more personal branch of



religion it is on the contrary the inner dispositions of man



himself which form the center of interest; his conscience; his



deserts; his helplessness; his incompleteness。  And although the



favor of the God; as forfeited or gained; is still an essential



feature of the story; and theology plays a vital part therein;



yet the acts to which this sort of religion prompts are personal



not ritual acts; the individual transacts the business by himself



alone; and the ecclesiastical organization; with its priests and



sacraments and other go…betweens; sinks to an altogether



secondary place。  The relation goes direct from heart to heart;



from soul to soul; between man and his maker。







Now in these lectures I propose to ignore the institutional



branch entirely; to say nothing of the ecclesiastical



organization; to consider as little as possible the systematic



theology and the ideas about the gods themselves; and to confine



myself as far as I can to personal religion pure and simple。  To



some of you personal religion; thus nakedly considered; will no



doubt seem too incomplete a thing to wear the general name。  〃It



is a part of religion;〃 you will say; 〃but only its unorganized



rudiment; if we are to name it by itself; we had better call it



man's conscience or morality than his religion。  The name



'religion' should be reserved for the fully organized system of



feeling; thought; and institution; for the Church; in short; of



which this personal religion; so called; is but a fractional



element。〃







But if you say this; it will only show the more plainly how much



the question of definition tends to become a dispute about names。







Rather than prolong such a dispute; I am willing to accept almost



any name for the personal religion of which I propose to treat。 



Call it conscience or morality; if you yourselves prefer; and not



religionunder either name it will be equally worthy of our



study。  As for myself; I think it will prove to contain some



elements which morality pure and simple does not contain; and



these elements I shall soon seek to point out; so I will myself



continue to apply the word 〃religion〃 to it; and in the last



lecture of all; I will bring in the theologies and the



ecclesiasticisms; and say something of its relation to them。







In one sense at least the personal religion will prove itself



more fundamental than either theology or ecclesiasticism。



Churches; when once established; live at second…hand upon



tradition; but the FOUNDERS of every church owed their power



originally to the fact of their direct personal communion with



the divine。  Not only the superhuman founders; the Christ; the



Buddha; Mahomet; but all the originators of Christian sects have

返回目录 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的