Philosophy and Religion | Page 5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
5. The doctrine of continuous Revelation through the Spirit is a part of
Christianity, and the condition of its acceptance as the final or absolute
Religion, . . . 185

{1}
PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION
LECTURE I
MIND AND MATTER
I have been invited to speak to you about the relations between
Religion and Philosophy. To do that in a logical and thoroughgoing
way it would be necessary to discuss elaborately the meaning first of
Religion and then of Philosophy. Such a discussion would occupy at
least a lecture, and I am unwilling to spend one out of six scanty hours
in formal preliminaries. I shall assume, therefore, that we all know in
some general way the meaning of Religion. It is not necessary for our
present purpose to discuss such questions as the definition of Religion
for purposes of sociological investigation, or the possibility of a
Religion without a belief in God, or the like. I shall assume that,
whatever else may be included in the term Religion, Christianity may at
least be included in it; and that what you are practically most interested
in is the bearing of Philosophy upon the Christian ideas concerning the
{2} being and nature of God, the hope of Immortality, the meaning and
possibility of Revelation. When we turn to Philosophy, I cannot
perhaps assume with equal confidence that all of you know what it is.

But then learning what Philosophy is--especially that most fundamental
part of Philosophy which is called Metaphysics--is like learning to
swim: you never discover how to do it until you find yourself
considerably out of your depth. You must strike out boldly, and at last
you discover what you are after. I shall presuppose that in a general
way you do all know that Philosophy is an enquiry into the ultimate
nature of the Universe at large, as opposed to the discussion of those
particular aspects or departments of it which are dealt with by the
special Sciences. What you want to know, I take it, is--what rational
enquiry, pushed as far as it will go, has to say about those ultimate
problems of which the great historical Religions likewise profess to
offer solutions. The nature and scope of Philosophy is best understood
by examples: and therefore I hope you will excuse me if without further
preface I plunge in medias res. I shall endeavour to presuppose no
previous acquaintance with technical Philosophy, and I will ask those
who have already made some serious study of Philosophy kindly to
remember that I am trying to make myself intelligible to those who
have not. I shall {3} not advance anything which I should not be
prepared to defend even before an audience of metaphysical experts.
But I cannot undertake in so short a course of lectures to meet all the
objections which will, I know, be arising in the minds of any
metaphysically trained hearers who may honour me with their presence,
many of which may probably occur to persons not so trained. And I
further trust the Metaphysicians among you will forgive me if, in order
to be intelligible to all, I sometimes speak with a little less than the
akribeia at which I might feel bound to aim if I were reading a paper
before an avowedly philosophical Society. Reservations, qualifications,
and elaborate distinctions must be omitted, if I am to succeed in saying
anything clearly in the course of six lectures.
Moreover, I would remark that, though I do not believe that an
intention to edify is any excuse for slipshod thought or intellectual
dishonesty, I am speaking now mainly from the point of view of those
who are enquiring into metaphysical truth for the guidance of their own
religious and practical life, rather than from the point of view of pure
speculation. I do not, for my own part, believe in any solution of the
religious problem which evades the ultimate problems of all thought.

The Philosophy of Religion is for me not so much a special and sharply
distinguished branch or department of {4} Philosophy as a particular
aspect of Philosophy in general. But many questions which may be of
much importance from the point of view of a complete theory of the
Universe can be entirely, or almost entirely, put on one side when the
question is, 'What may I reasonably believe about those ultimate
questions which have a direct and immediate bearing upon my religious
and moral life; what may I believe about God and Duty, about the
world and its ultimate meaning, about the soul and its destiny?' For
such purposes solutions stopping short of what will fully satisfy the
legitimate demands of the professed