lecture02-第1节
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
