It will be seen how much religious knowledge and the science of Nature
differ by their very origin. The one is the theory of the receptive
and logical life of the ego; the other is the theory of its active and
spontaneous life. As both the receptive and the active life are one,
however, the two orders of knowledge are neither isolated nor
independent. But they must never be confounded. Their results will
always remain heterogeneous; they are not of the same order, and cannot
supply the place of each other. If you were to admit, _e.g._, that
philosophers may succeed (as they have often been believed to do) in
establishing a veritable objective science of God, and if they were
thus to know God in Himself and apart from the religious ego, that
scientific knowledge of God, even if it were possible, would not be
religious knowledge; for to know God religiously is to know Him in His
relation to us--that is to say, in our consciousness, in so far as He
is present in it and determines it towards piety. This is the sense in
which it is permissible to maintain that religion is as independent of
metaphysics as it is of cosmology. It is the same with the knowledge
of the world. To know the world as an astronomer or a physicist is not
to know it religiously. To know it religiously is, while taking it as
it is, and in no wise contradicting the scientific laws according to
which it is governed, to determine its value in relation to the life of
spirit; it is to estimate it according as it is a means, a hindrance,
or a menace, to the progress of that life. In the same way, to know
ourselves religiously is not to construct scientific psychology; but
that psychology being once constructed, and properly constructed, it is
to realise ourselves in our relation both to God and to the world,
forcing ourselves to surmount the contradictions from which we suffer,
in order that we may attain to unity and peace of mind. Thus, not only
can religious knowledge never cast off its subjective character; it is
in reality nothing but that very subjectivity of piety considered in
its action and in its legitimate development.
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