Suppose that she agrees that religion, wherever it
is an active thing, involves a belief in ideal presences, and a
belief that in our prayerful communion with them,[333] work is
done, and something real comes to pass. She has now to exert her
critical activity, and to decide how far, in the light of other
sciences and in that of general philosophy, such beliefs can be
considered TRUE.
[333] "Prayerful" taken in the broader sense explained above on
pp. 453 ff.
Dogmatically to decide this is an impossible task. Not only are
the other sciences and the philosophy still far from being
completed, but in their present state we find them full of
conflicts. The sciences of nature know nothing of spiritual
presences, and on the whole hold no practical commerce whatever
with the idealistic conceptions towards which general philosophy
inclines. The scientist, so-called, is, during his scientific
hours at least, so materialistic that one may well say that on
the whole the influence of science goes against the notion that
religion should be recognized at all. And this antipathy to
religion finds an echo within the very science of religions
itself.
Pages:
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849