god the invisible king-第13部分

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！


on　of　Man〃　or　the　〃God　　of　Mankind〃　or　〃God。〃　　So　far　as　the　practical　and　moral　ends　of　　life　are　concerned；　it　does　not　matter　how　we　explain　or　refuse　to　　explain　His　presence　in　our　lives。　There　is　but　one　possible　gap　left　between　the　position　of　Dr。　　Chalmers　Mitchell　and　the　position　of　this　book。　　In　this　book　it　is　　asserted　that　GOD　RESPONDS；　that　he　GIVES　courage　and　the　power　of　　self…suppression　to　our　weakness。

5。　A　NOTE　ON　A　LECTURE　BY　PROFESSOR　GILBERT　MURRAY

Let　me　now　quote　and　discuss　a　very　beautiful　passage　from　a　lecture　　upon　Stoicism　by　Professor　Gilbert　Murray；　which　also　displays　the　　same　characteristic　of　an　involuntary　shaping　out　of　God　in　the　　forms　of　denial。　　It　is　a　passage　remarkable　for　its　conscientious　　and　resolute　Agnosticism。　　And　it　is　remarkable　too　for　its　　blindness　to　the　possibility　of　separating　quite　completely　the　idea　　of　the　Infinite　Being　from　the　idea　of　God。　　It　is　another　striking　　instance　of　that　obsession　of　modern　minds　by　merely　Christian　　theology　of　which　I　have　already　complained。　　Professor　Murray　has　　quoted　Mr。　Bevan's　phrase　for　God；　〃the　Friend　behind　phenomena；〃　　and　he　does　not　seem　to　realise　that　that　phrase　carries　with　it　no　　obligation　whatever　to　believe　that　this　Friend　is　in　control　of　the　　phenomena。　　He　assumes　that　he　is　supposed　to　be　in　control　as　if　it　　were　a　matter　of　course：

〃We　do　seem　to　find；〃　Professor　Murray　writes；　〃not　only　in　all　　religions；　but　in　practically　all　philosophies；　some　belief　that　man　　is　not　quite　alone　in　the　universe；　but　is　met　in　his　endeavours　　towards　the　good　by　some　external　help　or　sympathy。　　We　find　it　　everywhere　in　the　unsophisticated　man。　　We　find　it　in　the　unguarded　　self…revelations　of　the　most　severe　and　conscientious　Atheists。　　　Now；　the　Stoics；　like　many　other　schools　of　thought；　drew　an　　argument　from　this　consensus　of　all　mankind。　　It　was　not　an　absolute　　proof　of　the　existence　of　the　Gods　or　Providence；　but　it　was　a　　strong　indication。　　The　existence　of　a　common　instinctive　belief　in　　the　mind　of　man　gives　at　least　a　presumption　that　there　must　be　a　　good　cause　for　that　belief。　〃This　is　a　reasonable　position。　　There　must　be　some　such　cause。　　But　　it　does　not　follow　that　the　only　valid　cause　is　the　truth　of　the　　content　of　the　belief。　　I　cannot　help　suspecting　that　this　is　　precisely　one　of　those　points　on　which　Stoicism；　in　company　with　　almost　all　philosophy　up　to　the　present　time；　has　gone　astray　　through　not　sufficiently　realising　its　dependence　on　the　human　mind　　as　a　natural　biological　product。　　For　it　is　very　important　in　this　　matter　to　realise　that　the　so…called　belief　is　not　really　an　　intellectual　judgment　so　much　as　a　craving　of　the　whole　nature。　〃It　is　only　of　very　late　years　that　psychologists　have　begun　to　　realise　the　enormous　dominion　of　those　forces　in　man　of　which　he　is　　normally　unconscious。　　We　cannot　escape　as　easily　as　these　brave　men　　dreamed　from　the　grip　of　the　blind　powers　beneath　the　threshold。　　　Indeed；　as　I　see　philosophy　after　philosophy　falling　into　this　　unproven　belief　in　the　Friend　behind　phenomena；　as　I　find　that　I　　myself　cannot；　except　for　a　moment　and　by　an　effort；　refrain　from　　making　the　same　assumption；　it　seems　to　me　that　perhaps　here　too　we　　are　under　the　spell　of　a　very　old　ineradicable　instinct。　　We　are　　gregarious　animals；　our　ancestors　have　been　such　for　countless　ages。　　　We　cannot　help　looking　out　on　the　world　as　gregarious　animals　do；　we　　see　it　in　terms　of　humanity　and　of　fellowship。　　Students　of　animals　　under　domestication　have　shown　us　how　the　habits　of　a　gregarious　　creature；　taken　away　from　his　kind；　are　shaped　in　a　thousand　details　　by　reference　to　the　lost　pack　which　is　no　longer　therethe　pack　　which　a　dog　tries　to　smell　his　way　back　to　all　the　time　he　is　out　　walking；　the　pack　he　calls　to　for　help　when　danger　threatens。　　It　is　　a　strange　and　touching　thing；　this　eternal　hunger　of　the　gregarious　　animal　for　the　herd　of　friends　who　are　not　there。　　And　it　may　be；　it　　may　very　possibly　be；　that；　in　the　matter　of　this　Friend　behind　　phenomena　our　own　yearning　and　our　own　almost　ineradicable　　instinctive　conviction；　since　they　are　certainly　not　founded　on　　either　reason　or　observation；　are　in　origin　the　groping　of　a　lonely…　souled　gregarious　animal　to　find　its　herd　or　its　herd…leader　in　the　　great　spaces　between　the　stars。　〃At　any　rate；　it　is　a　belief　very　difficult　to　get　rid　of。〃

There　the　passage　and　the　lecture　end。　I　would　urge　that　here　again　is　an　inadvertent　witness　to　the　　reality　of　God。　Professor　Murray　writes　of　gregarious　animals　as　though　there　　existed　solitary　animals　that　are　not　gregarious；　pure　　individualists；　〃atheists〃　so　to　speak；　and　as　though　this　appeal　to　　a　life　beyond　one's　own　was　not　the　universal　disposition　of　living　　things。　　His　classical　training　disposes　him　to　a　realistic　　exaggeration　of　individual　difference。　　But　nearly　every　animal；　and　　certainly　every　mentally　considerable　animal；　begins　under　parental　　care；　in　a　nest　or　a　litter；　mates　to　breed；　and　is　associated　for　　much　of　its　life。　　Even　the　great　carnivores　do　not　go　alone　except　　when　they　are　old　and　have　done　with　the　most　of　life。　　Every　pack；　　every　herd；　begins　at　some　point　in　a　couple；　it　is　the　equivalent　　of　the　tiger's　litter　if　that　were　to　remain　undispersed。　　And　it　is　　within　the　memory　of　men　still　living　that　in　many　districts　the　　African　lion　has　with　a　change　of　game　and　conditions　lapsed　from　a　　〃solitary〃　to　a　gregarious；　that　is　to　say　a　prolonged　family　habit　　of　life。　Man　too；　if　in　his　ape…like　phase　he　resembled　the　other　higher　　apes；　is　an　animal　becoming　more　gregarious　and　not　less。　　He　has　　passed　within　the　historical　period　from　a　tribal　gregariousness　to　　a　nearly　cosmopolitan　tolerance。　　And　he　has　his　tribe　about　him。　　　He　is　not；　as　Professor　Murray　seems　to　suggest；　a　solitary　LOST　　gregarious　beast。　　Why　should　his　desire　for　God　be　regarded　as　the　　overflow　of　an　unsatisfied　gregarious　instinct；　when　he　has　home；　　town；　society；　companionship；　trade　union；　state；　INCREASINGLY　at　　hand　to　glut　it？　　Why　should　gregariousness　drive　a　man　to　God　　rather　than　to　the　third…class　carriage　and　the　public…house？　　Why　　should　gregariousness　drive　men　out　of　crowded　Egyptian　cities　into　　the　cells　of　the　Thebaid？　　Schopenhauer　in　a　memorable　passage　　（about　the　hedgehogs　who　assembled　for　warmth）　is　flatly　opposed　to　　Professor　Murray；　and　seems　far　more　plausible　when　he　declares　that　　the　nature　of　man　is　insufficiently　gregarious。　　The　parallel　with　　the　dog　is　not　a　valid　one。　Does　not　the　truth　lie　rather　in　the　supposition　that　it　is　not　the　　Friend　that　is　the　instinctive　delusion　but　the　isolation？　　Is　not　　the　real　deception；　our　belief　that　we　are　completely　　individualised；　and　is　it　not　possible　that　this　that　Professor　　Murray　calls　〃instinct〃　is　really　not　a　vestige　but　a　new　thing　　arising　out　of　our　increasing　understanding；　an　intellectual　　penetration　to　that　greater　being　of　the　species；　that　vine；　of　　which　we　are　the　branches？　　Why　should　not　the　soul　of　the　species；　　many　faceted　indeed；　be　nevertheless　a　soul　like　our　own？　Here；　as　in　the　case　of　Professor　Metchnikoff；　and　in　many　other　　cases　of　atheism；　it　seems　to　me　that　nothing　but　an　inadequate　　understanding　of　individuation　bars　the　way　to　at　least　the　　intellectual　recognition　of　the　true　God。

6。　RELIGION　AS　ETHICS

And　while　I　am　dealing　with　rationalists；　let　me　note　certain　recent　　interesting　utterances　of　Sir　Harry　Johnston's。　　You　will　note　that　　while　in　this　book　we　use　the　word　〃God〃　to　indicate　the　God　of　the　　Heart；　Sir　Harry　uses　〃God〃　for　that　idea　of　God…of…the…Universe；　　which　we　have　spoken　of　as　the　Infinite　Being。　　This　use　of　the　word　　〃God〃　is　of　late　theological　origin；　the　original　identity　of　the　　words　〃good〃　and　〃god〃　and　all　the　stories　of　the　gods　are　against　　him。　　But　Sir　Harry　takes　up　God　only　to　define　him　away　into　　incomprehensible　necessity。　　Thus：

〃We　know　absolutely　nothing　concerning　the　Force　we　call　God；　and；　　assuming　such　an　intelligent　ruling　force　to　be　in　existence；　　permeating　this　universe　of　millions　of　stars　and　（no　doubt）　tens　of　　millions　of　planets；　we　do　not　know　under　what　conditions　and　　limitations　It　works。　　We　are　quite　entitled　to　assume　that　the　end　　of　such　an　influence　is　intended　to　be　order　out　of　chaos；　happiness　　and　perfection　out　of　incompleteness　and　misery；　and　we　are　entitled　　to　identify　the　reactionary　forces　of　brute　Nature　with　the　　anthropomorphic　Devil　of　primitive　religions；　the　power　of　darkness　　resisting　the　power　of　light。　　But　in　these　conjectures　we　must　　surely　come　to　the　conclusion　that　the　theoretical　potency　we　call　　'God'　makes　endless　experiments；　and　scrap…heaps　the　failures。　　　Think　of　the　Dinosaurs　and　the　expenditure　of　creative　energy　that　　went　to　their　differentiation　and　their　wellnigh　incredible　physical　　development。　。　。　。　〃To　such　a　Divine　Force　as　we　postulate；　the　whole　development　and　　perfecting　of　life　on　this　planet；　the　whole　production　of　man；　may　　seem　little　more　than　to　any　one　of　us　would　be　the　chipping　out；　　the　cutting；　the　carving；　and　the　polishing　of　a　gem；　and　we　should　　feel　as　little　remorse　or　pity　for　the　scattered　dust　and　fragments　　as　must　the　Creative　Force　of　the　immeasurably　vast　universe　feel　　for　the　DISJECTA　MEMBRA　of　perfected　life　on　this　planet。　。　。　。〃

But　thence　he　goes　on　to　a　curiously　imperfect　treatment　of　the　God　　of　man　as　if　he　consisted　in　nothing　more　than　some　vague　sort　of　　humanitarianism。　　Sir　Harry's　ideas　are　much　less　thoroughly　thought　　out　than　those　of　any　other　of　these　sceptical　writers　I　have　　quoted。　　On　that　account　they　are　perhaps　more　typical。　　He　speaks　　as　though　Christ　were　simply　an　eminent　but　illreported　and　　abominably　served　teacher　of　ethicsand　yet　of　the　only　right　ideal　　and　ethics。　　He　speaks　as　though　religions　were　nothing　more　than　　ethical　movements；　and　as　though　Christianity　were　merely　someone　　remarking　with　a　bright　impulsiveness　that　everything　was　simply　　horrid；　and　so；　〃Let　us　instal　loving　kindness　as　a　cardinal　axiom。　　　　He　ignores　altogether　the　fundamental　essential　of　religion；　which　　is　THE　DEVELOPMENT　AND　SYNTHESIS　OF　THE　DIVERGENT　AND