The Non-religion of the Future: A Sociological Study — John Shaqi
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
According to Max Müller some notion of divinity, in especial in the
form of a notion of the infinite, must have preceded the conception of
God. Gods are simply subsequent personifications of this great innate
idea; our ancestors kneeled in worship long before they possessed a
name for Him before whom they were kneeling. Even at the present day
we recognize in the last resort the vanity of all the titles of the
unknown God whom we must adore really in silence. Religion, which is
responsible for the origin of the gods of history, may therefore well
survive them. We say religion; for in effect, according to Max Müller,
all religions amount in the end to one, since they may all be traced
back through the long course of their development to a single original
conception, that namely of the infinite, which from the very beginning
was present in the mind of man. This universal conception, however,
Max Müller does not regard as in any sense mystical or innate, in the
old acceptation of that word. He willingly adopts the axiom: _Nihil
in fide quod non antea fuerit in sensu._[12] But in his opinion some
perception of the infinite is logically involved in a perception of
the finite, and this conception of infinity, with its basis at once in
sense and reason, is the true foundation of religion. Given the five
senses of a savage, Max Müller undertakes to make him sensible of or at
least experience some presentiment of the infinite, make him desire it,
feel some aspiration toward it. Take the sense of sight for example:
“Man sees, he sees to a certain point; and then his eyesight breaks
down. But exactly where his eyesight breaks down there presses upon
him, whether he likes it or not, the perception of the unlimited or
the infinite.” “It may be said,” he adds, “that this is not perception
in the ordinary sense of the word. No more it is, but still less is it
mere reasoning.” “If it seems too bold to say that man actually sees
the invisible, let us say that he _suffers_ from the invisible, and
the invisible is only a special name for the infinite.” Man not only
necessarily divines the infinite as existing beyond the limits of the
finite, and as it were enveloping it; he perceives it within the limits
of the finite, and as it were penetrating it; the infinite divisibility
of matter is manifest to the senses, the fact that science seems to
demand the existence of an irreducible atom as a necessary postulate
to the contrary notwithstanding. And what is true of space is equally
true of time, applies equally to quality and quantity. “Beyond, behind,
beneath, and within the finite, the infinite is always present to our
senses. It presses upon us, it grows upon us from every side. What we
call finite in space and time, in form and word, is nothing but a veil
or net which we ourselves have thrown over the infinite.” And let it
not be objected that primitive languages supply no means of expressing
the idea of infinity, of the beyond, which is given in every finite
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