III

Yet splendid as such religious life may be conceded to be, it will

apparently lack one of the primary consolations of the older belief,

the assurance, namely, that the fundamental government of the world is

just and good. “God’s in his heaven; all’s right with the world.” If,

as we have been urging, God is not in his heaven, it may indeed, for

all we know to the contrary, be all wrong with the world. A few years

ago we were very much perturbed by certain conclusions reached by the

accredited masters of science. The universe was running down, they

said, and would end a lifeless, frozen mass. The thought of an

ever-living God was then a comfort against such ominous prophecy. If

God lives, it follows that all things of value will live, that the

world cannot go to ultimate ruin.

That old prophecy, however, of a frozen and lifeless world no longer

has honor in our land. Recent discoveries of new types of energy, a

more penetrating analysis both of the mathematics and mechanics of the

situation, show the prophecy to have been made on wholly insufficient

and insecure grounds. The old dogmatic materialism has had to give way

to a critical and open-minded evolutionism which tends more and more

to regard the cosmic process as one of expanding power, in which the

values for which we deeply care—conscious life, purposive direction,

science, art, morality—appear to have a place of growing security and

effectiveness. And yet the evolutionism of the day, unlike the older

religious thought, finds no cosmic certainty upon which it may utterly

bank. The universe, with all the high values that have been achieved,

_may_ indeed go to ruin. There is no absolute guarantee for the

future. All that modern evolutionism can say to us is that looking

over such history of the world as is accessible, and analyzing the

processes there found, it seems highly probable that the line of the

future will be a line of advance, an advance from relative

disorganization to organization, from a large degree of mechanical

indifference to increasing organic solidarity and integration, from

antagonisms and conflicts to mutuality and coöperation. But it is only

probable. There is no God who holds the destiny in his hands and makes

it certain of accomplishment.

In view of this uncertainty as to the world’s government and outcome,

it may be asked whether the new type of religion will not be weaker in

moral and spiritual vigor than the old. Do not vigor and initiative

spring from hope and sure confidence in the fundamental rightness of

the world? In answer to this one has but to ask the question: in what

type of situation does the human character grow strong and

heroic,—that in which there is no doubt of the happy outcome, in

which the individual plays his part, assured that nothing can happen

wrongly; or that in which the outcome is uncertain, in which the

individual realizes that he must fight his way, knowing not whether

victory or defeat will greet him, but assured only that whatever

happens, he must fight and fight to the end? Is it unfair to say that

the old religion with its confident, childlike resting on God (“He

loves the burthen”) developed a type of character that was not, in the

mass, conspicuously heroic? “God knows best”; “It will all come out

right”; “Thy will be done”—these are not expressions of fighting men;

they are expressions of men who resign themselves to the ruling of

powers greater than themselves. A civilization characterized by such

an attitude will not be one strenuously alive to eliminate the sorry

evils of life. But the men who believe that the issue of the universe

is in doubt, that there is no powerful God to lead the hosts to

victory, will, if they have the stuff of men in them, strike out their

manliest to help whatever good there is in the world to win its way

against the forces of evil. A civilization of such men will be a

tough-fibred civilization, strenuous to fight, grimly ready, like the

Old Guard, to die but never surrender.

There is, in short, something subtly weakening about the optimism of

the traditional religions. Like the historic soothing syrup, with its

unadvertised opiate, it soothes the distress not by curing the disease

but by temporarily paralyzing the function. “To trust God nor be

afraid” means in most cases—not all—to settle back from a too

anxious concern about the evils of the world. “God will take care of

his own!” How different is this from the attitude: “The task is ours

and the whole world’s and we must see it through!”

The Forum, October 1914 · 第 15 / 56 题