The Non-religion of the Future: A Sociological StudyGuyau, Jean-Marie
Religion
The Non-religion of the Future: A Sociological Study
Guyau, Jean-Marie
Irreligion and sociology; Religion; Social sciences
In the symbolic story of the temptation in the desert,
Satan says: “Command that these stones be made bread;” he urged Christ
to be guilty of a miracle, of the prestidigitation which the ancient
prophets had employed so frequently to strike the imagination of the
people. But Jesus refused. And on another occasion he said to the
people indignantly: If you did not see prodigies and miracles you do
not believe, and to the Pharisees: “Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the
face of the sky and of the earth, ... and why even of yourselves judge
ye not what is right?” It is by the testimony of our own souls, say
the Neo-Christians; it is by our own individual conscience, our own
individual reason, that we shall find justice in the word of Christ,
and that we shall revere it; and this word is not true because it is
divine, it is divine because it is true.
[Sidenote: Modern German historical criticism and liberal
Protestantism.]
Thus understood, liberal Protestantism is a doctrine that merits
discussion; only it is sadly in lack of any distinguishing
characteristic especially to mark it off from the numerous
philosophical sects which, in the course of history, have gathered
about the opinions of some man and endeavoured to identify his
teachings with the truth and to lend to them an authority more than
human. Pythagoras was for his disciples what Jesus is to the liberal
Protestant. The traditional respect also of the Epicureans for their
master is well known, the sort of worship they rendered him, the
authority that they lent to his words.[60] Pythagoras brought to light
a great idea, that of the harmony which governs the physical and moral
universe; Epicurus, another, that of the happiness which is the true
aim of rational conduct, the measure of goodness, and even of truth;
and by their disciples these two great ideas came to be looked upon not
as parts of the truth but as truth itself in its entirety; they saw
no ground for further search. In the same way, in our own times, the
Positivists see in Auguste Comte not a profound thinker simply, but one
who has laid his finger, so to speak, on the definitive verity, one who
has traversed at a dash the whole domain of intelligence and traced out
once for all its limits. It is rigorously exact to say that Auguste
Comte is a sort of Christ for bigoted Positivists—a Christ a trifle
too recent, who did not have the happiness of dying on the cross. Each
of these sects reposes on the following belief: Before Pythagoras,
Epicurus, or Comte, nobody had seen the truth; after them nobody will
ever see it more clearly. Such a creed implicitly denies: 1. Historical
continuity, the inevitable result of which is that the man of genius is
always more or less the expression of his century and that the honour
of his discoveries is not due wholly to himself; 2. Human evolution,
the inevitable result of which is that the man of genius cannot be the
expression of all the centuries to come—that his point of view must
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