八喜电子书 > 经管其他电子书 > lecture18 >

第1部分

lecture18-第1部分

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!












Lecture XVIII







PHILOSOPHY







The subject of Saintliness left us face to face with the



question; Is the sense of divine presence a sense of anything



objectively true?  We turned first to mysticism for an answer;



and found that although mysticism is entirely willing to



corroborate religion; it is too private (and also too various) in



its utterances to be able to claim a universal authority。  But



philosophy publishes results which claim to be universally valid



if they are valid at all; so we now turn with our question to



philosophy。  Can philosophy stamp a warrant of veracity upon the



religious man's sense of the divine?







I imagine that many of you at this point begin to indulge in



guesses at the goal to which I am tending。  I have undermined the



authority of mysticism; you say; and the next thing I shall



probably do is to seek to discredit that of philosophy。 



Religion; you expect to hear me conclude; is nothing but an



affair of faith; based either on vague sentiment; or on that



vivid sense of the reality of things unseen of which in my second



lecture and in the lecture on Mysticism I gave so many examples。 



It is essentially private and individualistic; it always exceeds



our powers of formulation; and although attempts to pour its



contents into a philosophic mould will probably always go on; men



being what they are; yet these attempts are always secondary



processes which in no way add to the authority; or warrant the



veracity; of the sentiments from which they derive their own



stimulus and borrow whatever glow of conviction they may



themselves possess。  







In short; you suspect that I am planning to defend feeling at the



expense of reason; to rehabilitate the primitive and



unreflective; and to dissuade you from the hope of any Theology



worthy of the name。







To a certain extent I have to admit that you guess rightly。 I do



believe that feeling is the deeper source of religion; and that



philosophic and theological formulas are secondary products; like



translations of a text into another tongue。  But all such



statements are misleading from their brevity; and it will take



the whole hour for me to explain to you exactly what I mean。







When I call theological formulas secondary products; I mean that



in a world in which no religious feeling had ever existed; I



doubt whether any philosophic theology could ever have been



framed。  I doubt if dispassionate intellectual contemplation of



the universe; apart from inner unhappiness and need of



deliverance on the one hand and mystical emotion on the other;



would ever have resulted in religious philosophies such as we now



possess。  Men would have begun with animistic explanations of



natural fact; and criticised these away into scientific ones; as



they actually have done。 In the science they would have left a



certain amount of 〃psychical research;〃 even as they now will



probably have to re…admit a certain amount。  But high…flying



speculations like those of either dogmatic or idealistic



theology; these they would have had no motive to venture on;



feeling no need of commerce with such deities。  These



speculations must; it seems to me; be classed as over…beliefs;



buildings…out performed by the intellect into directions of which



feeling originally supplied the hint。







But even if religious philosophy had to have its first hint



supplied by feeling; may it not have dealt in a superior way with



the matter which feeling suggested?  Feeling is private and dumb;



and unable to give an account of itself。  It allows that its



results are mysteries and enigmas; declines to justify them



rationally; and on occasion is willing that they should even



pass for paradoxical and absurd。  Philosophy takes just the



opposite attitude。  Her aspiration is to reclaim from mystery and



paradox whatever territory she touches。  To find an escape from



obscure and wayward personal persuasion to truth objectively



valid for all thinking men has ever been the intellect's most



cherished ideal。  To redeem religion from unwholesome privacy;



and to give public status and universal right of way to its



deliverances; has been reason's task。







I believe that philosophy will always have opportunity to labor



at this task。'288' We are thinking beings; and we cannot exclude



the intellect from participating in any of our functions。  Even



in soliloquizing with ourselves; we construe our feelings



intellectually。  Both our personal ideals and our religious and



mystical experiences must be interpreted congruously with the



kind of scenery which our thinking mind inhabits。  The



philosophic climate of our time inevitably forces its own



clothing on us。  Moreover; we must exchange our feelings with one



another; and in doing so we have to speak; and to use general and



abstract verbal formulas。 Conceptions and constructions are thus



a necessary part of our religion; and as moderator amid the clash



of hypotheses; and mediator among the criticisms of one man's



constructions by another; philosophy will always have much to do。







It would be strange if I disputed this; when these very lectures



which I am giving are (as you will see more clearly from now



onwards) a laborious attempt to extract from the privacies of



religious experience some general facts which can be defined in



formulas upon which everybody may agree。







'288' Compare Professor W。 Wallace's Gifford Lectures; in



Lectures and Essays; Oxford; 1898; pp。 17 ff。















Religious experience; in other words; spontaneously and



inevitably engenders myths; superstitions; dogmas; creeds; and



metaphysical theologies; and criticisms of one set of these by



the adherents of another。  Of late; impartial classifications and



comparisons have become possible; alongside of the denunciations



and anathemas by which the commerce between creeds used



exclusively to be carried on。  We have the beginnings of a



〃Science of Religions;〃 so…called; and if these lectures could



ever be accounted a crumb…like contribution to such a science; I



should be made very happy。







But all these intellectual operations; whether they be



constructive or comparative and critical; presuppose immediate



experiences as their subject…matter。  They are interpretative and



inductive operations; operations after the fact; consequent upon



religious feeling; not coordinate with it; not independent of



what it ascertains。







The intellectualism in religion which I wish to discredit



pretends to be something altogether different from this。  It



assumes to construct religious objects out of the resources of



logical reason alone; or of logical reason drawing rigorous



inference from non…subjective facts。  It calls its conclusions



dogmatic theology; or philosophy of the absolute; as the case may



be; it does not call them science of religions。  It reaches them



in an a priori way; and warrants their veracity。







Warranted systems have ever been the idols of aspiring souls。 



All…inclusive; yet simple; noble; clean; luminous; stable;



rigorous; true;what more ideal refuge could there be than such



a system would offer to spirits vexed by the muddiness and



accidentality of the world of sensible things? Accordingly; we



find inculcated in the theological schools of to…day; almost as



much as in those of the fore…time; a disdain for merely possible



or probable truth; and of results that only private assurance can



grasp。 Scholastics and idealists both express this disdain。 



Principal John Caird; for example; writes as follows in his



Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion:







〃Religion must indeed be a thing of the heart; but in order to



elevate it from the region of subjective caprice and waywardness;



and to distinguish between that which is true and false in



religion; we must appeal to an objective standard。  That which



enters the heart must first be discerned by the intelligence to



be TRUE。  It must be seen as having in its own nature a RIGHT to



dominate feeling; and as constituting the principle by which



feeling must be judged。'289' In estimating the religious



character of individuals; nations; or races; the first question



is; not how they feel; but what they think and believenot



whether their religion is one which manifests itself in emotions;



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 

返回目录 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的