Philosophy and Religion: Six Lectures Delivered at CambridgeRashdall, Hastings
Religion
Philosophy and Religion: Six Lectures Delivered at Cambridge
Rashdall, Hastings
Christianity; Philosophy and religion
I could wish myself that, in popular religious teaching, there was a
franker conception of this position--a position which, as I have said,
is really implied in the Theodicies of all the Divines. Popular
unbelief--and sometimes the unbelief of more cultivated persons--rests
mainly upon the existence of evil. We should cut at the roots of it by
teaching frankly that this is the best of all possible Universes,
though not the best of all imaginable Universes--such Universes as we
can construct in our own imagination by picturing to ourselves all the
good that there is in the world without any of the evil. We may still
say, if we please, that God is infinite because He is limited by
nothing outside His own nature, except what He has Himself caused. We
can still call Him Omnipotent in the sense that He possesses all the
power there is. And in many ways such a belief is far more practically
consolatory and stimulating than a belief in a God who can do all
things by any means and who consequently does not need our help. In
our view, we are engaged not in a sham warfare with an evil that is
really {86} good, but in a real warfare with a real evil, a struggle in
which we have the ultimate power in the Universe on our side, but one
in which the victory cannot be won without our help, a real struggle in
which we are called upon to be literally fellow-workers with God.
LITERATURE
The subject is more or less explicitly dealt with in most of the works
mentioned at the end of the last two lectures, and also in books on
Moral Philosophy too numerous to mention. Classical vindications of
the authority of the Moral Consciousness are Bishop Butler's _Sermons_,
and Kant's _Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals_ and
other ethical writings (translated by T. K. Abbott). I have expressed
my own views on the subject with some fullness in the third book of my
_Theory of Good and Evil_.
[1] See especially Book II. Lect. iii.
[2] 'We do not infer a character to be virtuous, because it pleases:
but in feeling that it pleases after such a particular manner, we in
effect feel that it is virtuous.' (_Treatise_, Part I, Section ii.,
ed. Green and Grose, vol. ii. p. 247.) 'The distinction of moral good
and evil is founded in the pleasure or pain, which results from the
view of any sentiment, or character; and as that pleasure or pain
cannot be unknown to the person who feels it, it follows that there is
just so much virtue in any character as every one places in it, and
that 'tis impossible in this particular we can ever be mistaken.'
(_Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 311.)
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account