Part 21 (1/2)
We have shown that the Gospels are highly dramatic; that the Christ is largely ideal; that many other persons before the Christian era claimed all that was claimed for Jesus; and that he, his conduct, and alleged sayings (he wrote nothing) are widely open to criticism.
We have shown that the distinguis.h.i.+ng feature of the New Testament-blood-salvation-is not a special revelation, but that it has been borrowed and modified and adapted from savages and from the most ignorant and superst.i.tious tribes; and that what is called the ”redemptive scheme” is full of absurdities and contradictions, and that it is philosophically and naturally demoralizing in its tendency and influence if its logical consequences are accepted.
We now come to the practical question, _What have we left?_ Is there anything in religion worth preserving? Indeed, is there anything condemned in this book that is essential to the purest religion and the highest morality? After doubting and throwing discredit on so much, have we anything left worth preserving? Having cast so much of the cargo overboard to lighten the s.h.i.+p, is the vessel worth saving? Having cast away the accretions and superst.i.tions of religion, we are only now just prepared to defend its essential and sublime principles. Let us see what remains.
I. _Our Faith in G.o.d remains._-Not a G.o.d. The pa.s.sage in the New Testament (John 4: 24) admits that ”a” is an interpolation.
There is no personality in G.o.d in a sense which implies limitation. G.o.d is spirit, and so spirit is G.o.d. Even Professor Haeckel, the German materialist, says: ”This monistic idea of G.o.d, which belongs to the future, has already been expressed by Bruno in the following words: A spirit exists in all things, and no body is so small but contains a part of the divine substance within itself by which it is animated.” The words G.o.d and religion have been so long a.s.sociated with superst.i.tion and priestcraft that many liberal thinkers have a repugnance to both. But we must not let these perversions of sacerdotalism rob us of good words. We can conceive of G.o.d as the _Over-all and In-all Spirit of the Universe._ That spirit is causation, and matter, its palpable form, is one of its manifestations. We know that Nature's method of making worlds and brutes and men is by a uniform system of evolution, taking millions and billions of years to carry on the work to the present time, and that it is likely that it will take millions more to perfect it. When asked what spirit is, we answer, We do not know; neither do we know what electricity is, nor can we answer one of a thousand questions that come up regarding the subtle and occult qualities of matter. We see no difference between the Unknowable of Herbert Spencer and the Unsearchable of Zophar in the book of Job. The Unknown Power is the Noumenon, the absolute Being in itself, the inner nature of force, motion, and even of conscience.
We have said, in substance, elsewhere: It is a great mistake to think of G.o.d as outside of and distinct from the universe. If there be a G.o.d at all, he is in the universe and in every part of it. We cannot properly localize him, and say that he is present in one place and not in another, or that he is in one place more than another. He must be everywhere and in everything. Anthropomorphic (man-like) views of G.o.d are what make atheists and agnostics.
Men constantly talk of the laws of Nature, forgetting that law itself is a product and cannot be a cause. The law of gravitation is not the cause of gravitation. A self-originating and self-executing law is unthinkable. The prevalence of law supposes the existence of a lawmaker and a law-executor. We accept the law of evolution, but cannot conceive of evolution independent of involution and an Evolver.
It may be said that this is ”begging the question” by a.s.suming the existence of an infinite G.o.d. But we deny that it is an a.s.sumption in its last a.n.a.lysis. What is known as the scientific method leads logically to the conclusion that there must be something that theists generally name G.o.d. You may call it ”protoplasm,” ”molecular force,” the ”potentiality of matter,” or even matter itself; and when you tell us what these words mean we will tell you what we mean by ”G.o.d.” Possibly we all mean the same thing. We know of the existence of G.o.d, as we know other things, by palpable manifestations.
Astronomers a.s.sumed the existence of Neptune from certain phenomena long before its existence could be demonstrated; and if the discovery had never been made the phenomena so long observed would have nevertheless justified the conclusion that there must be some stupendous cause for such unmistakable and marvellous perturbations.
When men talk of the eternity of matter we do not even profess to understand them. The most advanced scientists do not attempt to explain one of a thousand mysteries in which the phenomena of the material world is enshrouded. Why, then, should we be expected to explain where and how and when G.o.d came into existence, or how he could have had an eternal existence or be self-existent? We affirm no more of G.o.d than materialists imply of matter, and we endow him with no attributes that they do not virtually ascribe to matter. So far as a.s.sumption is concerned, both stand on the same ground. They, indeed, call things by different names, but mean about the same thing. What theists prefer to call ”the works of G.o.d” materialists call ”Nature,” ”cosmic laws,”
”spontaneous generation,” ”the potency of matter,” ”conservation of energy,” ”correlation of force,” and ”natural selection.”
The fundamental error of modern scientists is that they limit their investigations to the physical and palpable, while we have demonstrable evidence of the existence of the spiritual and invisible. We know nothing of matter but from its properties and manifestations, and we have the same kind of evidence in regard to spirit, and know that it is superior to gross matter, and therefore cannot be tested by the same crucibles. In the very nature of things a great cause must ever be imponderable and invisible. It cannot be weighed and measured, but must ever remain intangible and incomprehensible. The spirit in physical man in its relation to the Supreme Spirit is as the drop of water to the ocean or the single glimmering ray to the full-orbed, refulgent sun. Men may talk of ”force correlation,” and trace its progress and products, but they must remain dumb as to the beginning or origin of force unless they accept the doctrine of an _intelligent First Force_. There is no way of accounting for the existence of spirit, of life, of intelligence, but by premising the prior existence of spirit, life, and intelligence.
Like only causes like. An egg does not come from a stone, and the ascidian did not come from a lifeless rock.
The logical conclusion from the facts and principles herein suggested is that there must be an intelligent First Cause of all things-an all-pervading, fecundating, animating Spirit of the universe; and we prefer to call this G.o.d. Science has taught us the processes of his work, and denominates them the ”laws of Nature.” In point of fact, as little is known of the origin and essence of matter as of spirit, and there is as good ground for agnosticism in the former as in the latter.
There is therefore no necessary conflict between true science and a rational theism or monism.
It is a rational proposition that something must have been before what is called creation. There must have been an _intelligent potency_, and that power theists call G.o.d. Materialism in its last a.n.a.lysis ascribes to matter all that theists ascribe to G.o.d. It gives matter an eternal self-existence-endows it with an inherent infinite intelligence and an omnipotent potency. It spells ”G.o.d” with six letters instead of three.
It makes a G.o.d of matter, and then denies his existence!
We now submit that it is more rational to postulate the existence of an eternal Supreme Intelligence and Power, the Creator and Ruler of all things visible and invisible, who is the Author and Executor of the laws by which both mind and matter are governed. This Supreme Being is alone the Self-existent One, and what are called the properties and modes of inert matter are but the proofs and manifestations of his eternal power and G.o.dhead. There cannot be a poem without a poet, nor a picture without an artist. There cannot be a watch or other complex machine without an inventor and artisan. The universe is the sublimest of all poems, and Cicero well said that it would be easier to conceive that Homer's Iliad came from the chance shaking together of the letters of the alphabet than that the atoms should have produced the cosmos without a marshalling agency. The visible and palpable compel us to acknowledge their counterpart in the invisible and intangible, and we cannot rationally account for the origin of man without postulating the existence of an Intelligence and Power greater than humanity.
We are reproached for the inconsistency of believing in a Power we cannot comprehend, and endowing him with attributes of which we can form no just conceptions. Atheists do not seem to realize that they are guilty of a greater inconsistency. They tell us that we believe in a Being of whom we can form no conception, but they themselves must form some conception of such a Being, else how could they deny his existence?
There is no difficulty in admitting the existence of a Supreme Power if we do not attempt to comprehend and describe it. Matthew Arnold says: ”We too would say 'G.o.d' if the moment we said 'G.o.d, you would not pretend that you know all about him.” His definition of G.o.d is indeed vague, but vastly suggestive: ”An enduring Power not ourselves that makes for righteousness.” This suggests the moral element in the unknown Power. There is not only a spiritual sense in man which recognizes the supersensuous, but there is an indwelling witness to the eternal principle of rightfulness. The sentiment of oughtness is inherent and ineradicable. Every man who is not a moral idiot has a feeling that certain things ought and ought not to be-that there is an essential right and wrong. Human intuition sees and feels this mysterious Power that answers to our Ego, and from which it proceeds; and this inward conviction cannot be eradicated from the average mind by the pretensions of science. The patient watcher in the dark room at the terminus of the ocean cable sees in his suspended mirror the reflection of an electric spark, and he at once recognizes it as a message from the operator three thousand miles away. So G.o.d is seen by the aspiring and contemplative in the concave mirror of man's own spirit, and, though it is a mere reflection, a spark, a flash, it clearly proves the existence of the Central Magnet. It is this recognition of the moral element that forms the basis of moral government and of that wors.h.i.+pfulness which has manifested itself among all nations, barbarian and civilized.
It is safe to a.s.sume that the average Atheism is disbelief in the G.o.d of the dominant theology, and not in the Ultimate Power that makes for righteousness. Vulgar, anthropomorphic conceptions of G.o.d, which endow him with certain speculative attributes, are condemned by reason and science; but nevertheless phenomena have something behind them, and energy has something beneath it, and all things have something in them which is the source of all phenomena and energy; and this enduring, all-pervading Power is our sure guarantee of the order of the universe.
And this Power theists persist in calling G.o.d. Theologians may call this Pantheism, but it is only seemingly so. There is a vast difference between saying that everything is G.o.d, and that G.o.d is in everything.
The old watchmaker-mechanician idea, a G.o.d separate and outside of the universe, has become obsolete, and science and reason and the law of progressive development now compel men to reshape their conceptions of G.o.d as identical with the Cosmos, plus the Eternal Power.
Herbert Spencer has beautifully said: ”But amid the mysteries, which become the more mysterious the more they are thought about, there will remain the one absolute certainty that man is ever in presence of an Infinite and Eternal Energy, from which all things proceed.” The felt and the seen have their fulness in the unseen and intangible, and the visible impels us to seek its counterpart and complement in the invisible.
II. _Our Faith in Religion remains_.-And here the question comes up, What is religion? The commonly-accepted meaning of the word is as derived from the Latin _religare_, which means ”to bind back or to bind fast.” We do not accept the definition, because it is suggestive of _bondage_. It implies a previous harmonious relation with G.o.d which had been lost. It favors the dogmas of the fall of Adam and man's alleged reinstatement and ”binding back” to the divine allegiance, through what is called, in theological parlance, a ”redemptive scheme.” It is a significant fact that Lactantius, a theologian of the early part of the fourth century, was the first to apply the word religion to ”the bond of piety by which we are bound to G.o.d.”
Augustine of the fifth century followed his example, and so did Servius about the same time; and their example has been followed by theologians ever since, presumably because it favors the dogmas of the fall of Adam and the redemption by Christ. But the highest cla.s.sical authorities derive the word religion from _relegere_ or _religere_, signifying ”to go through or over and over again in reading, speech, or thought-to review carefully and faithfully to ponder and reflect with conscientious fidelity.”
Cicero must have understood the original meaning and origin of the Latin word, and he took this view of the subject. He lived more than three hundred years before Lactantius, and he said: ”But they who carefully meditated, and as it were considered and reconsidered all those things which pertained to the wors.h.i.+p of the G.o.ds, were called religious, from religere.” The word _religio_ was in common use in ancient Rome in the sense of _scruple_, implying the consciousness of a natural obligation wholly irrespective of the G.o.ds. The oldest popular meanings of the word _religion were faithfulness, sincerity, veracity, honor, punctiliousness, and conscientiousness.*(1) Religion, then, in its true meaning, is the great fact of *duty, of oughtness or right-fulness, of conscience and moral sense_. Its great business is to seek conformity to one's highest ideal. It consists in an _honest and persistent effort by all appropriate means to realize ideal excellence and to transform into actual character and practical life._
(1) See A Study of Religion, by Francis E. Abbot.
Religion in this sense is universally approved. It is false religion which is condemned. It is what some men would require you to believe in spite of history, science, and self-consciousness. It is superst.i.tion, bigotry, credulity, creed, sectarianism, that men detest. Religion is innate and ineradicable in man, and there is a natural religion concerning which man cannot be skeptical if he would. Bishop Butler has well said that the morality of the gospel is ”the republication of natural religion and it would be easy to show the evolution of religion from very small beginnings and how this work is going on to-day.