Books: To Infidelity and Back

H >> Henry F. Lutz >> To Infidelity and Back

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Again, you preach that what a man sows, that also shall he reap. If
that is true, then no person can really give him anything; therefore
philanthropy is a delusion. Now, then, Mr. Liberal, you want to be
reasonable and drop the false position to which your inherited
prejudices have held you, and adopt my views, which are thoroughly
simple and entirely consistent and logical. Belief in God is the
product of superstition, and belief in free will is a self-delusion.
I know that you will appeal to intuition in this case, but that is
only a scapegoat for deluded and illogical minds to hide behind. You
see that my conclusion is not only simple and logical, but it is
really more beautiful than your complex affair, and you will see it
as such after you succeed in overcoming your inherited prejudices.
There is no God. The universe is governed by blind law; at least,
that is all we know about it. We are evolved from the lowest forms of
organic life. What about conscience? Well, that is a matter of
education. Of course we should follow it, because it is a safer guide
than our present judgment, since it represents the judgment of all
our ancestors. Utility is our only standard of right and wrong in
morals, and we follow utility because we are not free and are
therefore compelled to do so.

_Mr. Orthodox_--If you are through, Mr. Freethinker, I will now
continue. But I must consider myself your opponent as well as Mr.
Liberal's. In the first place, I must admit that you are thoroughly
consistent with yourself as far as you go. But, my dear fellow, where
does your consistency lead you to? You claim to be a freethinker, and
yet you conclude that you are an entire slave and even think as you
do because you cannot help it.

I stated at the beginning of my reply to Mr. Liberal that many
religious facts must be accepted without thoroughly understanding
them, and claimed that it is reasonable to so accept them. I will now
endeavor to explain myself more fully. It seems to me that if
anything has been proven, it is that our logical reason is not always
a safe guide. For example, we cannot conceive of an end to
divisibility of space; and therefore we cannot conceive how we can
reach a given point. Now, practice gives the lie to this conclusion,
and if some rationalist should follow his reason here, he would
conclude that he can never get a piece of food into his mouth; or, in
other words, the logical conclusion would lead to starvation. I know
that some will deny this as a logical conclusion to get out of the
difficulty. But I could never see it as otherwise than logical, and I
have a goodly list of thinkers who have reached the same conclusion
before me. Again, it is admitted by all thinkers of all ages that our
reason tells us that there cannot be existence without beginning, or,
on the other hand, there can be no beginning of existence without
something existing before to cause its existence.

The conclusion is that inconceivability is not an infallible proof of
the absence of a fact, and that we must follow our experience even if
it conflicts with our reason. This is what we claim to do in
religion. Whether experience is the sole source of knowledge is a
question we need not discuss here. It is certainly the only safe
method in most things. For example, I wish to know what will cure a
certain disease. Suppose that I find a medicine that has cured every
case in which it has been administered. Would it not be irrational
for me to refuse to use that medicine because I cannot conceive how
it effects the cure? Of course it might be possible that the medicine
did not effect the cure; that it was the belief in its curative power
that produced the effect. Cases have frequently occurred where a
thing was for a long time believed to be the cause, while future
investigation proved that it was some other attendant circumstance
that was the real cause. But if our experience is that a given
medicine cures a certain disease invariably, and that no other known
medicine will cure it, we would be foolish not to use that medicine.
The same is true in religion. If we wish to accomplish certain
results and we have found a way in which those desirable results
can be brought about, and know of no other way to bring them
about; it would be irrational not to adopt that way, or follow out
the requirements of that theory. I told you, Mr. Liberal, that your
theory or doctrine was too simple. This is still more true of our
friend, Mr. Freethinker. You claim to hold very broad, liberal and
enlightened views. But although they are broad, they are not deep
enough. They are stretched out over the surface merely, and thus hide
from your view the great ocean of reality below. Yes, you have an
abundance of light, but not enough heat. In the polar regions they
have six months of light in one stretch, but no one would think of
starting a garden there, as there is not enough heat. To the cold
reason of some bachelor it is perfectly clear and indisputable that
the young lover is a deluded fool and should follow his reason by
never marrying. But I fondly believe that young lover sees the true
worth of one human soul, and gives us an idea of the worth we shall
see in all souls when we shall cease to see through a glass darkly.
As the bachelor does not touch the reality in his case, so I believe
that our friend, Mr. Freethinker, does not touch the great ocean of
reality in religion. We are convinced by experience that man is free,
and that nevertheless eternal causation does exist. We believe these
to be two co-ordinate truths and we are willing to wait until we can
solve the mystery; but in the meantime we wish to make use of the
practical belief in both truths. People are convinced that there is a
God who deals out exact justice; yet they are also convinced from
experience that there is a God who is love who forgives the penitent
sinner. That one God can possess both of these qualities seems as
impossible as that three Gods can be in one God. And yet people are
convinced that no other theory will explain their complex
experiences, and that living according to no other theory will enable
them to get the desirable results that they know from experience that
they do get. They may be mistaken; but it will be time enough to
consider that when some one has a theory that will account better for
all their various experiences. Well, you see my point and I shall
apply it no further. You see it is simply the principle that the
empirical school of philosophy claims to employ, but which many of
them employ only in the physical realm and fail to carry into the
spiritual or religious realm. They must admit that religious
convictions are and have been among the strongest, if not the
strongest, motive powers in the world's history. And thus their
philosophy of life leaves out the greatest pleasures and mightiest
incentives to action found in life.

But Mr. Liberal and his friends would tell us that this all refers to
theology. That doctrines are of no account. That what we want is
works. Exactly, but don't you see that if after the afore-said
experience you should not form the theory that the given medicine
cures the given disease and act in accordance with the theory, the
result would probably be death instead of health and life? The
question is, is it true to experience? Does it accomplish what it
purposes to accomplish better than any other theory, and can that
result be accomplished only by following the said theory? According
to many authorities, most if not all of our physical actions are
performed according to a theory based on induction as to facts in the
physical world. Thus we arrive at the conclusion that food nourishes
our body because it has always been found to do so. In the same way
many people have, through experience and facts, come to believe in
God who guides them and nourishes them spiritually.

If now we judge by fruits rather than by doctrines, or rather judge
our doctrines by their fruits, I claim that the orthodox doctrine is
superior to yours, Mr. Liberal. In the first place, you admit that
the lower ignorant classes you cannot reach, and you are greatly
surprised that they do not eagerly accept your _simple_ doctrines. It
is not the whole, but the sick, that need a physician. A religion
that cannot help those that need the greatest spiritual help cannot
be the religion of Christ. But let us suppose that an intelligent
foreigner who does not understand our language nor know our doctrines
should attend our respective churches and see the result produced--
the pleasure taken in coming and receiving our spiritual medicine.
And making allowance for all other differences, should observe which
helps most to make life worth living, and which makes the most and
best changes in the character of its adherents. He would have no
trouble to discover that orthodoxy ministers more to the needy soul
than your simple faith.

You, Mr. Liberal, talk about making infidels of people and drawing
them away from the church, but I believe it would have been fortunate
for you if you had not mentioned this subject; because you, according
to the confession of your own men, have driven more people from the
churches than any religious body having a similar numerical strength.
You tell people to use their reason, and after you have drawn them
out of the orthodox churches by that bait, they see that they must go
further than your position to satisfy what you call reason, and they
find large numbers among you ready to lead them to that logical
conclusion. It seems that the advocates of your liberal faith have
always believed that they were on the verge of accomplishing great
victories by drawing the multitudes to them; but as with the victim
of tuberculosis, who imagines he is getting better all the
time, it is always expectancy and never realization. If it is
prejudice that prevents the spread of your belief, then it ought to
grow most in New England, where it has largely worn away prejudice.
But the facts seem to be that there it is growing the least
comparatively; while out West, where it is a novelty and meeting with
opposition, it is making the most progress. A person is almost
tempted to conclude that if it were not for the opposition of some
mistaken people, who do not realize your real error, your progress
would come to an end at once.

I believe, Mr. Liberal, that Mr. Freethinker has the best of you
because he vanquished you according to your own method of inquiry.
But you are more nearly right according to the true method of
inquiry. You see it is the proper method of inquiry that I am
contending for. A person with the wrong method of inquiry in his head
will only be repulsed by poking dogmas at him and nothing can be done
with him until he has discovered the fallacy by following his method
to absurdity, its natural conclusion. After that he may be induced to
follow the empirical method of inquiry with a demonstration that
experience and well-authenticated testimony are to be followed rather
than rationalism.

What follows is the last part of the sermon on "The Proper Method of
Religious Inquiry." Text: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is
good."

It is not only important that we should appeal to our own experience
in trying to discover what is true in religion, but we should also
take into consideration the experiences of others. If a man, who is
partially color blind, should base a science of color on his own
experience, it would necessarily be partial or incomplete. So if a
class of men, with certain peculiar traits, should build up a system
of theology on their religious experiences, it would necessarily be
partial and not adequate for universal application. Suppose, for
example, that a number of persons with large reasoning powers, cold
temperaments, and very little religious feeling, should build up a
religious system on their experiences. Is it not perfectly clear that
it would be partial and narrow? It would make no allowance at all for
people of strong religious experiences. While it might be of some use
to these few people, it would never help the great bulk of humanity
who need the help of religion the most. To say that a religion is not
for the common people is to admit that it is narrow and not true to
universal human nature. Certainly it is not Christian, for the common
people heard Jesus gladly; and they ever will hear gladly any one who
preaches a religion that is true to their own religious experiences.

In trying to discover what is true in religion, we should also
carefully examine the religious experiences of all ages, as recorded
in their religious writings. I shall here quote from an authority on
this point, because I think it of much value, and because it is not
probable that the writer was influenced by prejudice and preconceived
ideas. I shall quote from John Stuart Mill's "System of Logic," page
477: "There is a perpetual oscillation in spiritual truths, and in
spiritual doctrines of any significance, even when not truths. Their
meaning is almost always in a process either of being lost or of
being recovered. Whoever has attended to the history of the more
serious convictions of mankind--of the opinion by which the general
conduct of their lives is, or as they conceive ought to be, more
especially regulated--is aware that even when recognizing verbally
the same doctrines, they attach to them at different periods a
greater or less quantity, and even a different kind of meaning. The
words in their original acceptation connoted, and the propositions
expressed, a complication of outward facts and inward feelings, to
different portions of which the general mind is more particularly
alive in different generations of mankind. To common minds, only that
portion of the meaning is in each generation suggested, of which that
generation possesses the counterpart in its habitual experience. But
the words and propositions lie ready to suggest to any mind duly
prepared to receive the remainder of the meaning. Such individual
minds are almost always to be found; and the lost meaning, revived by
them, again by degrees works its way into the general mind.

"The arrival of this salutary reaction may, however, be materially
retarded by the shallow conceptions and incautious proceedings of
mere logicians. ... These logicians think more of having a clear,
than of having a comprehensive, meaning; and although they perceive
that every age is adding to the truth which it has received from its
predecessors, they fail to see that a counter process of losing,
truths already possessed, is also constantly going on, and requiring
the most sedulous attention to counteract it."

But, as a matter of fact, people have, as a rule, followed their
experiences in everything, despite the sneers and ridicules of the
would-be wise. People have planted their vegetables during the
increase of the moon despite all ridicule and laughter. And in due
time the wise men came to their position, declaring that the sunlight
reflected by the moon helps the growth of vegetation. People in all
ages have believed in faith cure under one form or another to the
utter amazement of the intelligent physicians who made fun of them
and pitied their ignorance. But now, through the facts discovered by
hypnotism and other means, the scientists are coming around and
admitting that the old women were right, that the people really did
get help from faith cure.

In religion, too, people have followed their experience, despite the
sneers, ridicule and protests of wise men. And, on the whole, I have
no doubt that they are better off than if they had listened to the
persons who showed them that their beliefs, from a rationalistic
standpoint, are false; and at the same time offered them beliefs that
were about as ridiculous from a logical standpoint, and which left
out all the power and good of their own system of belief.

CHAPTER III.

THE FUNCTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE MIND.

The objections made to faith are by no means an effect of knowledge,
but proceed rather from ignorance of what knowledge is.--_Bishop
Berkley._

No difficulty emerges in theology which has not previously emerged in
philosophy.--_Sir Wm. Hamilton._

The human mind inevitably and by virtue of its essential constitution
finds itself involved in self-contradictions whenever it ventures on
certain courses of speculation.--_Mansel._

In the last two chapters I presented the reasons that led me to
infidelity and back to Christ, as they appeared to me while in the
thick of the conflict and soon after. In this and following chapters
I wish to present the matter in the light that has come to me on the
subject up to the present date.

As will be noticed in the previous chapters, the external causes that
drove me to infidelity were the theology of creeds, sectarianism and
the apparent difficulties in the Bible and in religion. But the real
underlying cause was rationalism, or a failure to recognize the
proper functions and limitations of the finite intellect. In later
chapters, I shall show how I overcame the difficulties about creeds
and speculative theology and how I solved the problem of sectarianism
by turning to Christian union on the primitive gospel. In this
chapter I wish to speak more definitely of rationalism or the
subjective cause of my infidelity. For, after all, the whole matter
resolves itself into a question of psychology, or science of the
mind. What is the profit of reading numerous books on the subject,
_pro_ and _con_, so long as we are reading the books through colored
glasses that deceive our vision and lead us to apply false tests as
to what the truth in the matter is?

There must be some matters that require our prayerful and serious
consideration, when we observe how the most talented, scholarly,
devout and honest of all ages have been divided into warring camps on
questions of religion, politics, medicine and science. Certainly
truth is not divided; and there must be some mysterious, deceptive
mental pitfalls that have caused this Babel of confusion. When we
count the cost of this warring conflict of the choicest spirits of
the earth in waste, failure, suffering, bloodshed and death, and
contemplate the gain in prosperity, progress, happiness and conquest
over ignorance and evil, that would have resulted had all the good
been enabled to see alike, and thus unite on the truth, we cannot
fail to be impressed with the fact that this is one of the greatest,
if not the greatest, theme that has ever engaged the attention of
mortal man. Well may we ask with Pilate, "What is truth?" Or perhaps
the more important question, "How can we discover what is truth?"
What is there in the nature of the mind that side-tracks the wisest
and best in their effort to know the truth? Why was Paul, the
conscientious, intellectual giant, so deceived that he "verily
thought he was doing God service" while destroying the best and
holiest thing that had ever come to earth? Why did Cotton Mather and
other saintly, scholarly Christians martyr innocent saints as
witches? Why did devout patriots of the North and South slaughter
each other in cold blood? Why were the scientific theses written at
Harvard during forty years, all found out of date by Edward Everett
Hale? Why are the intelligent and consecrated hosts of Christ wasting
three-fourths of their men and money through sectarian divisions? Why
are the intelligent, patriotic citizens of America divided into two
camps on free silver and other issues when the truth and their
interest are one, and by a united effort they could carry every
election for truth and righteousness? Common sense asks, Why? The
interests of humanity ask, Why? Love and compassion ask, _Why?_ I
believe we must find the answer chiefly in the failure to understand
clearly the nature and functions of the mind.

The Nature of Conscience.

Turn, for example, to conscience. What is its nature? Is it a safe
guide? Does it always tell us what is right? Why has conscience
fought on both sides of every great historical conflict? Surely we
should stay this awful, pitiable and destructive conflict of the
conscientious; at least, long enough to examine most earnestly into
the cause of this strange and disastrous puzzle. If conscience is not
a safe guide, then woe betide us; for it is the only moral guide we
have, or, at least, the only avenue through which human and divine
truth can guide us. For it is the moral nature itself.

The eye without light cannot see, but if we are lost in a forest, the
eye becomes helpless as a guide, even if there is light. Yet the eye
is a safe guide, and in bodily movements it is essentially the only
guide we have. We thus learn that to exercise their function the eyes
must have light and knowledge of the localities in which they are to
act as a guide. What the eyes are in guiding our bodily movements,
that the conscience is in guiding our moral actions. But as the eyes
without light and knowledge are helpless as a guide, so conscience
without love and truth is a blind monster. There is conscience and
_conscience_. And as long as we use the term ambiguously and fail to
discriminate between conscience proper and the term as used in the
looser, larger sense, we will have nothing but confusion. Conscience
proper is simply the impulse of the soul that urges us to do right as
we see the right. We do not deny that it also embodies the basic
element in the soul that enables us to discover what is right; but
our conviction as to what is right is dependent upon knowledge
acquired through other faculties. When we speak of conscience in the
loose and general sense, we refer to both of these elements. In this
sense conscience is the product of a number of faculties working
together. Thus when we talk about following conscience, we mean
following the voice of our moral nature, or the convictions of the
highest and best aspirations in our soul. Conscience should always be
followed as a guide in both its proper and larger sense; but as an
impulse to do what we believe to be right, it is infallible, while as
a guide to knowledge of what is right, it is fallible and liable to
lead us into all kinds of folly and error.

While, therefore, we should always follow our conscience, or our
highest conviction of what is right, we should assiduously probe our
conscience day by day to seek for errors in the part that is
dependent upon information. In other words, a truly conscientious
person not only scrupulously does what he believes to be right; but
he also constantly strives to get all the truth, that his conscience
may be enlightened more and more. To follow our conscience,
therefore, in searching for and obeying the truth, is our highest
duty to God, and it is the _sine qua non_ of acceptance with him.
This is the "love of the truth" (2 Thess. 2:10), "the good and honest
heart" (Luke 8:15), through which the gospel becomes fruitful. To
refuse to follow our conscience, or highest light of duty, as
revealed in the Bible or from any other source, is treason toward God
in whose image we were morally created; and such persons forfeit
heaven, no matter how faultless their outward acts may be. With God
it is a matter of the inner motive, as the entire Bible reveals. The
man who lives a respectable life outwardly, but fails to meet his
inner moral obligations, is not a good moral man, but a hypocrite.
Therefore no man can ever be saved without morality in the full and
true sense of the word. Conscience, then, enlightened by truth, is
the voice of God to the soul. The Proverb says, "The spirit of man is
the lamp of the Lord, searching all the inward parts" (Prov. 20:27),
while in Rom. 2:14-16 we read: "For when Gentiles that have not the
law do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law,
are the law unto themselves; in that they show the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith,
and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them;
in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my
gospel, by Jesus Christ."

God wants us to follow our present conviction of duty until by
investigation we discover a better one. Thus God guides the
individual in his conduct through his conscience enlightened by the
Holy Spirit (Rom. 9:1). But this guidance is only for the individual.
It has a fallible element in it that needs to be improved by constant
and vigilant readjustment as the individual increases his knowledge
and sharpens his conscience by exercise (Rom. 12:2). Alas! how much
mischief has come from neglect of these facts. How many have tried to
thrust the leadings of their conscience on others, in and out of
creeds. Again, how many good people have become self-righteous and
despised those who differed from them because they mistook matters of
opinion and expediency as matters of conscience, through failing to
recognize the fallible, variable element in their conscience. How
foolish we act if we do not keep in mind these distinctions. The
infidel who claimed that he was unhappy because he knew too much, and
that Christians are happy because they are deluded, and then
promulgated his misery-producing doctrine for conscience' sake, is an
illustration of the absurdity into which a sensitive but perverted
conscience will lead a person. But yesterday I met a very
conscientious young man who left the ministry because he could not
agree, with members of the church he was serving, on matters of
expediency. On my table lies a letter recently received from a young
man who graduated for the ministry last spring, but through doubts,
similar to those I formerly experienced, left the ministry for
conscience' sake. This unhappiness of doubters and this testimony of
their consciences, even while they hold opinions that logically rob
conscience of any authority, should cause every one to think; and is
strong evidence that skepticism is unnatural and fundamentally wrong.
I followed rationalism into infidelity for conscience' sake. I gave
up belief in the miraculous and supernatural in the Bible _for
conscience' sake_. But after the rationalists had driven me to this
bitter end, through my sensitive conscience, I was gravely informed
that conscience was a mere creature of education and therefore should
only be followed conditionally.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12