There is one more argument against militant Rationalism which demands our attention. "Why should we be so impatient of error?" asks Sir Leslie Stephen. "The enormous majority of the race has, on any hypothesis, been plunged in superstitions of various kinds, and, on the whole, it has found that it could thrive and be decently happy and contented in its ignorance. Science declines to accept catastrophes; and no catastrophe would be more startling than a sudden dispersal of the mists that have obscured the human intelligence for so many ages. If they grow a little thinner in our time, we may well be content; but is it not childish to be impatient about the rate of development of these vast secular [age-long] processes? Why be in such a hurry to 'change the errors of the Church of Rome for those of the Church of the Future'?" [366] I hope I have already answered this question to the satisfaction of some at least of my readers. I have shown that there is a very real danger in further concealment--in keeping up the farce. But let this pass. The reason why we should be impatient of error--why the truth should be told--is that the elimination of error will usher in an era of greater happiness. In order that we may the more clearly perceive this, I shall now conclude this book with a rapid survey of the arguments for Rationalism. § 4. The Outlook. When Rationalism reigns supreme,-- 1. Morality will be founded on a firm basis. Its origin and necessity being better understood, it will also be better practised, whether in commerce, in politics, or in our social relations--i.e., both in our public and in our private conduct. Also the present atmosphere of religious insincerity will be cleared. Relieved of this temptation to deceive our neighbour and even ourselves, our moral fibre will be strengthened, and we shall be far less likely to be hypocrites in other matters. 2. Social evils will stand a better chance of being redressed. 3. All religious intolerance will disappear once and for all. 4. An era of peace and happiness may at last be realised, because the methods of its attainment will be scientific and rational. We shall have recognised the fact that a gospel which proclaims a sword and eternal damnation cannot at the same time be a gospel of good tidings, cannot bring "Peace on earth, goodwill towards men." It may be said that such optimism is absurd, but is it really so?