lectures14+15-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!
Lectures XIV and XV
THE VALUE OF SAINTLINESS
We have now passed in review the more important of the phenomena
which are regarded as fruits of genuine religion and
characteristics of men who are devout。 Today we have to change
our attitude from that of description to that of appreciation; we
have to ask whether the fruits in question can help us to judge
the absolute value of what religion adds to human life。 Were I
to parody Kant; I should say that a 〃Critique of pure
Saintliness〃 must be our theme。
If; in turning to this theme; we could descend upon our subject
from above like Catholic theologians; with our fixed definitions
of man and man's perfection and our positive dogmas about God; we
should have an easy time of it。 Man's perfection would be the
fulfillment of his end; and his end would be union with his
Maker。 That union could be pursued by him along three paths;
active; purgative; and contemplative; respectively; and progress
along either path would be a simple matter to measure by the
application of a limited number of theological and moral
conceptions and definitions。 The absolute significance and value
of any bit of religious experience we might hear of would thus be
given almost mathematically into our hands。
If convenience were everything; we ought now to grieve at finding
ourselves cut off from so admirably convenient a method as this。
But we did cut ourselves off from it deliberately in those
remarks which you remember we made; in our first lecture; about
the empirical method; and it must be confessed that after
that act of renunciation we can never hope for clean…cut and
scholastic results。 WE cannot divide man sharply into an animal
and a rational part。 WE cannot distinguish natural from
supernatural effects; nor among the latter know which are favors
of God; and which are counterfeit operations of the demon。 WE
have merely to collect things together without any special a
priori theological system; and out of an aggregate of piecemeal
judgments as to the value of this and that experiencejudgments
in which our general philosophic prejudices; our instincts; and
our common sense are our only guidesdecide that ON THE WHOLE
one type of religion is approved by its fruits; and another type
condemned。 〃On the whole〃I fear we shall never escape
complicity with that qualification; so dear to your practical
man; so repugnant to your systematizer!
I also fear that as I make this frank confession; I may seem to
some of you to throw our compass overboard; and to adopt caprice
as our pilot。 Skepticism or wayward choice; you may think; can
be the only results of such a formless method as I have taken up。
A few remarks in deprecation of such an opinion; and in farther
explanation of the empiricist principles which I profess; may
therefore appear at this point to be in place。
Abstractly; it would seem illogical to try to measure the worth
of a religion's fruits in merely human terms of value。 How CAN
you measure their worth without considering whether the God
really exists who is supposed to inspire them? If he really
exists; then all the conduct instituted by men to meet his wants
must necessarily be a reasonable fruit of his religionit would
be unreasonable only in case he did not exist。 If; for instance;
you were to condemn a religion of human or animal sacrifices by
virtue of your subjective sentiments; and if all the while a
deity were really there demanding such sacrifices; you would be
making a theoretical mistake by tacitly assuming that the deity
must be non…existent; you would be setting up a theology of your
own as much as if you were a scholastic philosopher。
To this extent; to the extent of disbelieving peremptorily in
certain types of deity; I frankly confess that we must be
theologians。 If disbeliefs can be said to constitute a theology;
then the prejudices; instincts; and common sense which I chose as
our guides make theological partisans of us whenever they make
certain beliefs abhorrent。
But such common…sense prejudices and instincts are themselves the
fruit of an empirical evolution。 Nothing is more striking than
the secular alteration that goes on in the moral and religious
tone of men; as their insight into nature and their social
arrangements progressively develop。 After an interval of a few
generations the mental climate proves unfavorable to notions of
the deity which at an earlier date were perfectly satisfactory:
the older gods have fallen below the common secular level; and
can no longer be believed in。 Today a deity who should require
bleeding sacrifices to placate him would be too sanguinary to be
taken seriously。 Even if powerful historical credentials were
put forward in his favor; we would not look at them。 Once; on
the contrary; his cruel appetites were of themselves credentials。
They positively recommended him to men's imaginations in ages
when such coarse signs of power were respected and no others
could be understood。 Such deities then were worshiped because
such fruits were relished。
Doubtless historic accidents always played some later part; but
the original factor in fixing the figure of the gods must always
have been psychological。 The deity to whom the prophets; seers;
and devotees who founded the particular cult bore witness was
worth something to them personally。 They could use him。 He
guided their imagination; warranted their hopes; and controlled
their willor else they required him as a safeguard against the
demon and a curber of other people's crimes。 In any case; they
chose him for the value of the fruits he seemed to them to yield。
So soon as the fruits began to seem quite worthless; so soon as
they conflicted with indispensable human ideals; or thwarted too
extensively other values; so soon as they appeared childish;
contemptible; or immoral when reflected on; the deity grew
discredited; and was erelong neglected and forgotten。 It was in
this way that the Greek and Roman gods ceased to be believed in
by educated pagans; it is thus that we ourselves judge of the
Hindu; Buddhist; and Mohammedan theologies; Protestants have so
dealt with the Catholic notions of deity; and liberal Protestants
with older Protestant notions; it is thus that Chinamen judge of
us; and that all of us now living will be judged by our
descendants。 When we cease to admire or approve what the
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