按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
a sport is not the organic expression of discontent which has
been long felt； but which has not been attended to； nor been met
step by step by as much small remedial modification as was found
practicable： so that when a change does come it comes by way of
revolution。 Or； again （only that it comes to much the same
thing）； a sport may be compared to one of those happy thoughts
which sometimes come to us unbidden after we have been thinking
for a long time what to do； or how to arrange our ideas； and have
yet been unable to arrive at any conclusion。
So with politics； the smaller the matter the prompter； as a
general rule； the settlement； on the other hand； the more
sweeping the change that is felt to be necessary； the longer it
will be deferred。
The advantages of dealing with the larger questions by more
cataclysmic methods are obvious。 For； in the first place； all
composite things must have a system； or arrangement of parts； so
that some parts shall depend upon and be grouped round others； as
in the articulation of a skeleton and the arrangement of muscles；
nerves； tendons； etc。； which are attached to it。 To meddle with
the skeleton is like taking up the street； or the flooring of
one's house； it so upsets our arrangements that we put it off
till whatever else is found wanted； or whatever else seems likely
to be wanted for a long time hence； can be done at the same time。
Another advantage is in the rest which is given to the attention
during the long hollows； so to speak； of the waves between the
periods of resettlement。 Passion and prejudice have time to calm
down； and when attention is next directed to the same question；
it is a refreshed and invigorated attention…an attention；
moreover； which may be given with the help of new lights derived
from other quarters that were not luminous when the question was
last considered。 Thirdly； it is more easy and safer to make such
alterations as experience has proved to be necessary than to
forecast what is going to be wanted。 Reformers are like
paymasters； of whom there are only two bad kinds； those who pay
too soon； and those who do not pay at all。
CHAPTER II
COMMON GROUND
I HAVE now； perhaps； sufficiently proved my sympathy with the
reluctance felt by many to tolerate discussion upon such a
subject as the existence and nature of God。 I trust that I may
have made the reader feel that he need fear no sarcasm or levity
in my treatment of the subject which I have chosen。 I will；
therefore； proceed to sketch out a plan of what I hope to
establish； and this in no doubtful or unnatural sense； but by
attaching the same meanings to words as those which we usually
attach to them； and with the same certainty； precision； and
clearness as anything else is established which is commonly
called known。
As to what God is； beyond the fact that he is the Spirit and the
Life which creates； governs； and upholds all living things； I can
say nothing。 I cannot pretend that I can show more than others
have done in what Spirit and the Life consists； which governs
living things and animates them。 I cannot show the connection
between consciousness and the will； and the organ； much less can
I tear away the veil from the face of God； so as to show wherein
will and consciousness consist。 No philosopher； whether Christian
or Rationalist； has attempted this without discomfiture； but I
can； I hope； do two things： Firstly； I can demonstrate； perhaps
more clearly than modern science is prepared to admit； that there
does exist a single Being or Animator of all living things … a
single Spirit； whom we cannot think of under any meaner name than
God； and； secondly； I can show something more of the
persona or bodily expression； mask； and mouthpiece of this
vast Living Spirit than I know of as having been familiarly
expressed elsewhere； or as being accessible to myself or others；
though doubtless many works exist in which what I am going to say
has been already said。
Aware that much of this is widely accepted under the name of
Pantheism； I venture to think it differs from Pantheism with all
the difference that exists between a coherent； intelligible
conception and an incoherent unintelligible one。 I shall
therefore proceed to examine the doctrine called Pantheism； and
to show how incomprehensible and valueless it is。
I will then indicate the Living and Personal God about whose
existence and about many of whose attributes there is no room for
question； I will show that man has been so far made in the
likeness of this Person or God； that He possesses all its
essential characteristics； and that it is this God who has called
man and all other living forms； whether animals or plants； into
existence； so that our bodies are the temples of His spirit； that
it is this which sustains them in their life and growth； who is
one with them； living； moving； and having His being in them； in
whom； also； they live and move； they in Him and He in them； He
being not a Trinity in Unity only； but an Infinity in Unity； and
a Unity in an Infinity； eternal in time past； for so much time at
least that our minds can come no nearer to eternity than this；
eternal for the future as long as the universe shall exist； ever
changing； yet the same yesterday； and to…day； and for ever。 And I
will show this with so little ambiguity that it shall be
perceived not as a phantom or hallucination following upon a
painful straining of the mind and a vain endeavour ＇sic＇ to give
coherency to incoherent and inconsistent ideas； but with the same
ease； comfort； and palpable flesh…and…blood clearness with which
we see those near to us ； whom； though we see them at the best as
through a glass darkly； we still see face to face； even as we are
ourselves seen。
I will also show in what way this Being exercises a moral
government over the world； and rewards and punishes us according
to His own laws。
Having done this I shall proceed to compare this conception of
God with those that are currently accepted； and will endeavour
＇sic＇ to show that the ideas now current are in truth efforts to
grasp the one on which I shall here insist。 Finally； I shall
persuade the reader that the differences between the so…called
atheist and the so…called theist are differences rather about
words than things； inasmuch as not even the most prosaic of
modern scientists will be inclined to deny the existence of this
God； while few theists will feel that this； the natural
conception of God； is a less worthy one than that to which they
have been accustomed。
CHAPTER III
PANTHEISM。 I
THE Rev。 J。 H。 Blunt； in his 〃Dictionary of Sects； Heresies；
etc。；〃 defines Pantheists as 〃those who hold that God is
everything； and everything is God。〃
If it is granted that the value of words lies in the definiteness
and coherency of the ideas that present themselves to us when the
words are heard or spoken…then such a sentence as 〃God is
everything and everything is God〃 is worthless。
For we have so long associated the word 〃God〃 with the idea of a
Living Person； who can see； hear； will； feel pleasure；
displeasure； etc。； that we cannot think of God； and also of
something which we have not been accustomed to think of as a
Living Person； at one and the same time； so as to connect the two
ideas and fuse them into a coherent thought。 While we are
thinking of the one； our minds involuntarily exclude the other；
and vice versa； so that it is as impossible for us to
think of anything as God； or as forming part of God； which we
cannot also think of as a Person； or as a part of a Person； as it
is to produce a hybrid between two widely distinct animals。 If I
am not mistaken； the barrenness of inconsistent ideas； and the
sterility of widely distant species or genera of plants and
animals； are one in principle…sterility of hybrids being due to
barrenness of ideas； and barrenness of ideas arising from
inability to fuse unfamiliar thoughts into a coherent conception。
I have insisted on this at some length in 〃Life and Habit；〃 but
can do so no further here。 （Footnote： Butler returned to this
subject in 〃Luck； or cunning？〃 which was originally published in
1887。
In like manner we have so long associated the word 〃Person〃 with
the idea of a substantial visible body； limited in extent； and
animated by an invisible something which we call Spirit； that we
can think of nothing as a person which does not also bring these
ideas before us。 Any attempt to make us imagine God as a Person
who does not fulfil ＇sic＇ the conditions which our ideas attach
to the word 〃person；〃 is ipso facto atheistic； as
r