If beauty is the criterion of religion, this view of the relation of
religion to morality is justified. But what if there be the same
difference in the beauty of two separate characters that there is
between the mineral and the shell? What if there be a moral beauty and a
spiritual beauty? What answer shall we get if we demand a more
scientific distinction between characters than that based on mere
outward form? It is not enough from the standpoint of biological
religion to say of two characters that both are beautiful. For, again,
no fundamental distinction in Science depends upon beauty. We ask an
answer in terms of biology, are they flesh or spirit; are they living or
dead?
If this is really a scientific question, if it is a question not of
moral philosophy only, but of biology, we are compelled to repudiate
beauty as the criterion of spirituality. It is not, of course, meant by
this that spirituality is not morally beautiful. Spirituality must be
morally very beautiful--so much so that popularly one is justified in
judging of religion by its beauty. Nor is it meant that morality is not
_a_ criterion. All that is contended for is that, from the scientific
standpoint, it is not _the_ criterion. We can judge of the crystal and
the shell from many other standpoints besides those named, each
classification having an importance in its own sphere. Thus we might
class them according to their size and weight, their percentage of
silica, their use in the arts, or their commercial value. Each science
or art is entitled to regard them from its own point of view; and when
the biologist announces his classification he does not interfere with
those based on other grounds. Only, having chosen his standpoint, he is
bound to frame his classification in terms of it.
It may be well to state emphatically, that in proposing a new
classification--or rather, in reviving the primitive one--in the
spiritual sphere we leave untouched, as of supreme value in its own
province, the test of morality. Morality is certainly a test of
religion--for most practical purposes the very best test. And so far
from tending to depreciate morality, the bringing into prominence of the
true basis is entirely in its interests--in the interests of a moral
beauty, indeed, infinitely surpassing the highest attainable perfection
on merely natural lines.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account