{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39455/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39455","id":"gutenberg_39455","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39455","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Psychiatry/Psychology","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Immortality","Rationalism"],"text":"Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Paul Clark and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber's Note:\n\n    Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as\n    possible, including non-standard spelling and punctuation.\n\n    Some changes of spelling and punctuation have been made. They are\n    listed at the end of the text.\n\n    OE ligatures have been expanded.\n\n    Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.\n\n    Bold text has been marked with =equals signs=.\n\n\n\n\n _Sacrificing the earth for paradise is giving up\n the substance for the shadow._\n\n --Victor Hugo.\n\n Is Life Worth Living\n Without Immortality?\n\n A Lecture Delivered Before\n the Independent Religious\n Society, Chicago\n\n By\n M. M. MANGASARIAN\n\n     I may be doing you an injustice, Bertie, but it seemed to me in\n     your last that there were indications that the free expression of\n     my religious views had been distasteful to you. That you should\n     disagree with me I am prepared for; but that you should object to\n     free and honest discussion of those subjects which above all others\n     men should be honest over, would, I confess, be a disappointment.\n     The Free-thinker is placed at this disadvantage in ordinary\n     society, that whereas it would be considered very bad taste upon\n     his part to obtrude his unorthodox opinion, no such consideration\n     hampers those with whom he disagrees. There was a time when it took\n     a brave man to be a Christian. Now it takes a brave man not to be.\n\n SIR A. CONAN DOYLE,\n The Stark Munro Letters--Fourth Letter.\n\n\n\n\nIs Life Worth Living Without Immortality?\n\n\nIs life worth living? If we are in good health, it certainly is. In a\ncertain sense, even to ask such a question implies that we are not at\nour best. It is the sick, mentally as well as physically, who question\nthe value of life. We cannot appreciate health too highly. Our\nphilosophy of life is more profoundly affected by the condition of our\nbody than we have any idea. If I were composing a new set of beatitudes,\none of them would be in exaltation of health:\n\n_Blessed are they that have health, for they shall take pleasure in\nlife._\n\nHealth also inspires _faith_ in life. The first commandment of the\ndecalogue, instead of reading, \"Thou shalt have no other gods before\nme,\" which is metaphysical and without definite meaning, could with much\nadvantage be altered to read:\n\n_Thou shalt not trifle with thy health._\n\nHow fortunate it would have been for man had the \"Deity\" given that as\nhis first and best thought to the world! Then, indeed, would he have\nbeen the friend of man. We cannot preserve our health without observing\nall the other commandments--of temperance, purity, sanity, self\npossession, contentment, and serenity of mind. \"Behold I bring unto you\nhealth\" ought to be the glad tidings of salvation. Give us that, and all\nthe rest will be added unto us. Health is the foundation of character.\nIf the foundation is insecure--if we have inherited disease and\ncorruption, we can be sound, neither in our thoughts nor in our actions.\nThe time may come when to be sickly will be considered a crime. A\nrevolution in our feelings in this matter is already taking place.\nFormerly it was thought that the path to self-development is through\nsorrow and suffering, and that the sick were the saints. The verdict of\nscience today, which has been confirmed by the growing experience of\nman, is that pleasurable activity is the most wholesome environment for\nman. Happiness has upon human nature the same effect that the sunshine\nhas upon the soil. Man is a failure if he is not happy. The highest\naccomplishment is the ability to enjoy life. To those who say that\nservice or usefulness is the noblest aim of life, we answer, \"Why should\nthose who serve the noblest ends of life be unhappy?\"\n\nBut let me first present to you the answer which one of America's best\nknown psychologists, Prof. William James, of Harvard, gives to this most\ninteresting question. Prof. James is a teacher not only of the young men\nin one of our leading Universities, but his ideas have become a part of\nthe furniture of the American mind. Both his thought and the candor with\nwhich he expresses himself have secured for him a large following. Prof.\nJames has an engaging style. Not that he is not also a profound thinker,\nbut his sentences are as symmetrical as they are solid. He writes to be\nunderstood. That, I take it, is the secret of the masters of style. The\ngods always speak from behind \"clouds and darkness.\" That explains why\nit is so difficult to understand what they say. But the great teachers\npermit no screens, draperies, curtains, or hangings of any sort to come\nbetween them and the public. There is nothing hidden about their\nthoughts. Neither do they speak in parables. Whoever can not make\nhimself understood should hold his peace.\n\nThe parents of this renowned psychologist were Swedenborgians, and I\nbelieve the professor is still, nominally, at least, a member of the\nSwedenborgian church. Swedenborg, as you know, was a mystic; he was,\nindeed, a sort of a medium, who claimed to have seen and conversed with\nGod face to face, and to have received from him a supplementary\nrevelation, in some such sense that Mrs. Eddy or Joseph Smith received\none. Of course, Swedenborg was also a philosopher, which Smith and Eddy\nare not. The early connections and training of Prof. James explain in\npart his interest in the work of the Psychical Research Society, of\nwhich he is one of the officers. So-called spiritist or occult\nphenomena, such as automatic slate writing, table tipping and telepathy,\nhave always interested Prof. James, but he is by no means an easy\nvictim, though he looks forward hopefully to the time when science will\ndefinitely locate the undiscovered country whose bourne has not yet been\nsighted.\n\nSome years ago when Prof. James and I were summer neighbors in New\nHampshire--near Chocorua lake--I heard the professor deliver a lecture\non hypnotism in the village church of Tamworth. An incident occurred at\nthe time which has its bearing on the experience our Society is having\nwith the directors of the Orchestral Association. While Prof. James was\nexplaining the phenomena of hypnotism from the pulpit, I saw, from where\nI was sitting, an elderly woman showing signs of restlessness in her\nseat. Presently she rose to her feet, walked up the aisle slowly, and\ntaking her stand directly in front of Prof. James on the platform, she\nupbraided him for desecrating the House of God by delivering in it a\nlecture on hypnotism. In clear, though trembling tones, she ordered him\nout of the church. Naturally the professor was greatly embarrassed, as\nwas also his audience. The old woman, however, was soon prevailed upon\nby the elders of the church to resume her seat and keep the peace. But\nshe was trying to oust Prof. James from the church, as the trustees of\nthis building are trying to oust our Society from this hall, on account\nof religious differences. The old woman of New Hampshire was not\nsuccessful, and I trust that the old woman of Chicago will not fare any\nbetter. To close a hall to a movement is an easy thing, but to close the\near of the world to its message is not so easy.\n\nI have spoken of the early education of Prof. James in order to explain\nthe metaphysical bent of his mind. As a psychologist, he has an\ninternational reputation, but his greatest vogue is among, what are\ncalled, the liberal Christians. The orthodox have no use for him, but to\nthose who are endeavoring to interpret Christianity so as to make it\nharmonize with modern thought--who are filling the ancient skins with\nwine newly pressed--he is a defender and a champion of the faith. Prof.\nJames seems to have discovered a way by which one can be a scientist and\na supernaturalist at the same time. He appears to be of the opinion that\na person may deny or reject many of the orthodox dogmas, and still be\njustified in calling himself a Christian. He is, in fact, one of the\nNew Theologians, who are supposed to have reconstructed Christianity,\nand saved the supernatural. For this service, Prof. James and his\n_confreres_ are held in high esteem by those who would have had to give\nup Christianity but for their timely help.\n\nIn his lecture on, \"Is Life Worth Living,\" the professor admits that he\nis writing for the pessimists. It is they who are in the \"to be or not\nto be\" mood of mind. The optimist does not need consolation, for he is\nincapable of even suspecting that life is not worth living. Some\ntemperaments are as incapable of depression or gloom, as others are of\nhappiness. If there are parts of the world on which the sun never goes\ndown, so there are natures which know no night. We make a mistake,\nhowever, if we think that the pessimist represents a lower type of\nmental evolution. On the contrary, pessimism comes with civilization,\nand it generally attacks men and women of a higher culture. Suicide is\nrare among the negroes or the less advanced races; but in the United\nStates, representing the most perfect type of civilization, dowered\nmagnificently, and rich in the possession of the treasures of art and\nnature; in America, the home of hope and opportunity--with its immense\nprairies, its great West, its army of earth-subduers, empire-builders,\nlarge-natured, generous, daring, enduring, restless, resistless\npioneers--more than three thousand people every year kill themselves. If\nwe were to seek for an explanation of this strange phenomenon, the\nnearest we can come to it would be to say that these people prefer death\nto life because they do not find life worth their while. There is not\nenough in it to satisfy them. To use an Emersonian phrase, life is to\nthem no more than \"a sucked orange.\" When the perfume, the aroma, the\ntaste, the tints, and the juices have been extracted from the fruit--who\ncares for what is left.\n\nOf course, these remarks have no reference to the cases of sudden\nsuicide, committed in a moment of frenzy--when a man driven, as it were,\nby a storm in the brain, lets go of his hold and slips into the\ndarkness. The professor has in mind rather those who even though they do\nnot commit suicide, live on reluctantly, under protest, and who treat\nlife as we would a guest who has overstaid his welcome, and to whose\nfinal departure we look forward with pleasure.\n\nBut there is still another class of pessimists who need to be reasoned\nwith. These are the people who brood over the existence of evil in the\nworld, and feel the misery of the many so keenly, that they think it\ninvolves a point of honor to consent to be happy in such a world. The\ncontemplation of human sorrow, the surging waves of which break upon\nevery shore; and the cry of human anguish rising like the blind cry of\nall the seas that roll, has a tendency to slacken the hold of the\nreflective mind upon life. Prof. James admits that pessimism is\nessentially a religious disease, in the sense that it results from the\ninability of man to entertain two contradictory thoughts at the same\ntime: A father in heaven, whose tender mercies are over all his\nchildren, and children dying of hunger and neglect! Infinite wisdom\nenthroned in heaven, and a world running topsy-turvy. The refined mind\ncannot contemplate this contradiction without distress. If God is\neverywhere, why is there darkness anywhere? If there is within reach an\nocean of truth, why is it doled out to us in driblets which hardly wet\nour lips, when we are burning with thirst? Religion provokes desires\nwhich it cannot satisfy, and makes promises which it will not fulfil. It\nis this contradiction which bites the soul black and blue. God is\ninfinite! and behold we are starving. God is light! and we grope in\ndarkness. God is great! and we cannot budge without crutches. It is this\nthought which teases us out of our peace of mind. The idea of a God,\ngifted with infinite parts, measured against the helplessness of man,\nmakes for pessimism.\n\nBut in the opinion of Prof. James, religion alone can cure the disease\nwhich religion creates. By religion, he does not mean merely loving\none's neighbor and being loyal to one's best thoughts. Religion,\naccording to Prof. James, means the belief that beyond this present\nlife, \"there is an unseen world of which we now know nothing positive\nbut in its relation to which the significance of our mundane life\nconsists.\" If this is the first act of an unending drama, it would have\ngreat worth and significance, but if it is a detached and disconnected\npiece, upon which the curtain will soon fall never to rise again--if it\nis never going to be finished--it loses, according to Prof. James, its\nseriousness. In other words, it is the belief that man is an eternal\nbeing whom no catastrophe can crush or annihilate, which makes our\npresent existence worth while, and which also reconciles us to the\ndiscipline of pain and evil. Life is worth living, in short, if man is\nimmortal. This is the drift of Prof. James' teaching, as it is also that\nof all supernaturalists.\n\nWhat evidence does the professor offer to prove the existence of an\nunseen world and the immortality of man? He offers none. He admits that\nscience has not as yet demonstrated the reality of an invisible world.\nPerhaps it never will, but what of that? \"You have got a right to\nbelieve in an unseen world,\" declares the professor. Is it not\ninteresting? It will be seen that if the professor has no evidence, he\nhas many arguments. One of his arguments is that, since, we must either\nbelieve or disbelieve in a future life, neutrality in the matter being\nan unattainable thing, why not take our choice, and while we are at it,\nchoose immortality. Another argument is, that as our longings and\nyearnings in other directions have turned out to be prophetic, we have\nevery reason to believe that the desire for eternal life also will be\nfulfilled. Art, science, music, health, have come to us because of an\ninner impulse which prompted us to go after them. A similar impulse\nurges us to seek the divine, which is a sort of proof that the divine\nexists. Still another argument is this: All the great successes or\nachievements of life came as a result of the courage that takes risks.\nWithout audacity, man would never have crossed the ocean, or invented\nthe aeroplane. If the belief in immortality requires the taking of\nrisks, if it is hazardous even to hold it, we should not hesitate on\nthat account, since some of the best things have come to us by taking\nrisks. Start out for God and immortality; and some day you may cast\nanchor in the shining waters that lap the shores of a divine continent.\n\"We are free to trust at our own risk anything that is not impossible,\"\nconcludes the professor. Finally, there is the argument from analogy,\nwhich I may explain by a personal experience. In the Pasteur Institute\nin Paris, last summer, I saw in the vivisection room, physicians in\ntheir white aprons, operating upon live rabbits, cutting and dissecting\nthem, while the helpless creatures were so fastened to the tables that\nthey could not move a muscle. Now all this must seem very cruel to the\nrabbit. It must think the physician a butcher, devoid of all feeling,\nor justice, and it must perforce denounce the world in which such wanton\ntorture is inflicted by the strong upon the weak. But if the rabbit\ncould take a larger view, if it could be made to see that its sufferings\nare contributing to the progress of science and the amelioration of the\nconditions of life upon this planet, and thereby helping to hasten the\nday when disease shall be conquered, would it not be reconciled to the\nphysician's knife and the operating table? The larger view which would\nembrace the world unseen will help to give to evil, suffering and\nmisery, which now we do not understand, a _raison d'etre_. The part of\nwisdom as well as of courage then, is to \"believe what is in the line of\nour needs, for only by the belief is the need fulfilled. Refuse to\nbelieve, and you shall indeed be right, for you shall irretrievably\nperish. But believe, and again you shall be right, for you shall save\nyourself.\"\n\nIt will be seen by what has preceded, that Prof. James of Harvard\nUniversity, throws the weight of his influence on the side of those who\nhave always maintained that God and immortality are indispensable to the\nhappiness of man. In his opinion, what a man would be if deprived of his\nreason, the universe would be if deprived of a God, and life, of a\nfuture existence. The eminent psychologist takes the further position\nthat it is immaterial whether or not there is any evidence to prove the\nexistence of a God or of a life after death. If the belief is essential\nto our happiness and usefulness, he thinks we have got the right to\nentertain it, irrespective of the question of evidence. \"If there is a\nbelief of any kind to which you have taken a special fancy, or one that\nyou feel like crying for,\" the professor seems to say, \"help yourself to\nit; you have only yourself to suit.\" Even if such a belief should\ninvolve an element of risk, we are urged to take the risk. If it\nrequires audacity even to believe in a God and immortality, we are told\nto have the audacity. It is his idea that when we are dealing with the\nunknown, the important thing is the heart's desire, and not the question\nof evidence. In passing, I might suggest that Prof. James would never\nhave thought of pushing aside with such nonchalance, the question of\nevidence, were it not for an irrepressible suspicion that the evidence\nis against him. He hopes to do without the evidence because the evidence\nwill not help him. This reminds us of the saying of the philosopher\nHobbes, that, men are generally against reason when reason is against\n_them_.\n\nAs already intimated, the liberal party in the church regards Prof.\nJames as a defender of the faith. He is classed with such men as Sir\nOliver Lodge and Lord Kelvin, who though scientists still believe in the\nsupernatural, and by their example have made such a belief respectable.\nIt must be borne in mind, however, that these distinguished men are\nChristians only, if at all, in a very loose sense of the word. All the\ncardinal doctrines of revelation, such as the creation, the atonement,\nthe incarnation, and a personal God--even one, to say nothing of a\ntrinity--they reject. These gentlemen have not enough faith to be\nbaptised to-day, had they not been baptised in their childhood,--or to\nbe received into any Christian church without greatly stretching the\nrules in their behalf. It remains then quite true, and the argument has\nnot yet been answered, that there is not a single eminent thinker in\nthe world to-day who will subscribe to the creed of Christendom\nwithout first going through it with a blue pencil, or a pair of\nscissors. But Prof. James, as also Lodge and Kelvin, if they are\nnot supernaturalists in the ordinary sense of the word, neither are they\nanti-supernaturalists. They are between and betwixt, if I may use that\nphrase--not quite ready to part with supernaturalism altogether, nor yet\nable to hold on to it in its entirety, and so they linger somewhere on\nthe borders or the edge of it.\n\nThe first remark I have to make on the position of these newly recruited\ndefenders of supernaturalism--even though the supernaturalism which they\ndefend be of the attenuated kind--is, that their argument is not even an\nimprovement on that of the theologian. I like the dogmatic and\nautocratic, \"thus saith the Lord,\" of theology, much better than the\n\"suit yourself\" of these gentlemen. The one position is as destructive\nof intellectual integrity, as the other. The theologian starts with the\nfallacy that God can make a thing true by an act of his will--that his\n_say so_ makes all need of evidence superfluous. Prof. James and the men\nof his school start with a proposition equally fatal to the\ntruth--namely; that whatever we wish to be true concerning the unknown\nis true. All that is needed, for instance, to give the universe a God is\nto wish for one. All that is necessary to make a man immortal is to\ndesire and believe that he is. \"The Will to Believe,\" which is the\ntitle of one of the professor's writings, makes truth the creature of\nman, as theology makes it the creature of God. You see that after all,\nthe theologian and the \"scientific\" supernaturalist pull together. That\nis to say, when science lends itself to theology, it ceases to be\nscientific. It is not theology that goes over to science, but science\nthat goes over to theology. As soon as science appears at the camp of\ntheology, it is forthwith swallowed up. When Prof. James speaks of the\n\"will to believe,\" and never mind the evidence, he is borrowing from\ntheology, the \"will to create\" of God.\n\nEven as the Deity in creating did not have to consider anything but his\nglory and pleasure, likewise man in believing does not have to consider\nanything but his needs and desires. Ask, \"What is Truth?\" and the\ntheologian answers: \"Whatever God wants it to be.\" Ask now the scientist\nallies of the supernatural, \"What is Truth,\" and they answer: \"Whatever\nman desires or craves it to be.\" Of course, it may be objected that it\nis only concerning the unknown that man is permitted to dispense with\nevidence and consult his will. But there is no merit, for instance, in a\nman not telling any falsehoods where he is sure of being found out; his\ncharacter is tested by his refusal to lie where he is sure he never will\nbe found out. It is concerning the unknown about which we can say\nanything and everything we please without the fear of ever being caught,\nthat we should restrain ourselves and show our loyalty to the\neverlasting law of honor, never to depart from veracity. To make any\nassertions about the unknown is to take an undue advantage of one's\nneighbors. \"Truth is not mine to do with it as I please,\" said Giordano\nBruno, \"I must obey the truth, not command it.\" But the\ntheologico-scientific position is the very reverse of this. If a god\nwere to ask the question, \"What is Truth?\" His priests would answer,\n\"Lord, suit thyself.\" If men asked, \"What is Truth?\" the Harvard\nprofessor and his colleagues would reply, \"It depends upon your will to\nbelieve.\"\n\nThe name given to this \"free and easy philosophy,\" if I may use such\nan expression--is pragmatism, which is a word from the Greek root\n_pragmatikos_, whence our word \"practice\" and \"practical.\" The idea\nat the basis of this philosophy is that whatever is practical and\nbusiness-like--whatever is necessary to a given program, is\nauthoritative. The philosopher, Kant, was one of the first to urge that\nwe have a right to believe as we please concerning the things which we\ncan neither prove nor disprove by evidence, if such beliefs are\nnecessary to morality. His modern disciples following his leadership,\ntake the position that it is the usefulness of a hypothesis or a belief,\nand not its truth, that should concern us. \"Does it work,\" is the test,\nthey say, of the value of a scheme or statement, and not, \"Is it true?\"\nIf it works, what do we care whether or not it be true. If it does not\nwork, it is of no help to us even if it were true. This is identically\nthe same argument which is advanced by the Roman Catholics, to justify\nfor instance, the belief in the existence, somewhere in the universe, of\na place called purgatory. \"The doctrine of purgatory works,\" argues the\npriest, and therefore, it makes no difference whether or not such a\nplace really exists. It is a useful, consoling and profitable doctrine.\nTherefore it is as good as true. In the phraseology of pragmatism,\nmillions of people want a purgatory, therefore, there is one. And once\nagain, to the question, \"What is Truth,\" the answer of both the\ntheologian and the pragmatist is, \"Do not bother about it.\" And this\ndescribes the attitude of the Protestant as well as of the Catholic\ntoward truth. They do not bother about it. Yes, _they do not bother\nabout it_. That is why progress limps and the darkness lingers. People\nhave been brought up not to bother about truth, which explains why error\nis still king of more than half of the world. I cannot find the\nwords--all words fail me to express my disappointment that a teacher of\nthe youth in one of our great institutions, who are to be the America of\ntomorrow, should in any way contribute to the impression that truth is\nsecondary; that our needs, our interests, our inclinations, or our\nwhims, come first, and that if we have not the courage to look the truth\nin the face, we can turn around and make terms with myth and fable.\n\nIf we were disposed to trip the professor, or by one single thrust to\ndisqualify him for further action in the arena of thought, we could say\nthat even from the point of view of the pragmatist, truth comes first,\nand that by no imaginable manoeuvring can truth be shifted to a\nsubordinate rank. It cannot be done. Listen! You may not have to prove\nthe existence of a God, or of a future, or of a purgatory, before\nbelieving in it. Granted: but you have to prove and you are trying to\nprove, that it is _true_ that you do not have to prove them. Even\npragmatists who say that utility is before truth, labor to prove that it\nis _true_ that utility is before truth. In other words, they have got to\nprove the truth of their theory, whatever that may be, before they can\nmake it have any value, or before it can command our respect. Things\nhave to be true else they cannot exist. All the labor of Prof. James has\nfor its object the demonstration of what he considers to be a truth,\nnamely: that the truth of the belief concerning the unknown is not\nessential. In other words, God may be true or not, a future life may be\ntrue or not, but it has to be true that it makes no difference whether\nthey are true or not. Wiggle as we may, we cannot escape the ring of\nreason that embraces life. This is what I mean when I say that the stars\nfight for Rationalism. Truth is so tightly screwed and made fast to the\ntop of the flag-pole that even hands of iron and steel cannot pull it\ndown to a lower notch.\n\nA second remark I would make on Prof. James' manner of reasoning is that\nsuch arguments as he uses to prop up the belief in God and immortality\nshow, not confidence, but desperation, if it is not too strong a word to\nuse. Urging us to take risks, to have the audacity, to ignore the\nquestion of evidence, to suit ourselves, and, not to mind the facts, is\nnot the language of sobriety, but of recklessness. To say to a man\nstanding on the edge of a precipice and looking down into a chasm of\nunknown depth and darkness, to jump over, because, perchance, he may\ndiscover his heart's desire at the bottom, is frantic advice, and a man\nhas to be in a panicky state of mind to let go of the sun and of the\ngreen earth for a possible world at the bottom of the abyss. It was a\nthought of Emerson that the humblest bug crawling in the dust with its\nback to the sun, and shining with the colors of the rainbow, is a thing\nmore sublime than any possible angel. If there were the slightest\nfoundation for the belief in an unseen world, no one would think of\nresorting to such extreme measures as our learned professor does, to\nuphold it. When I see a man huffing and puffing, I do not conclude that\nhe has a strong case, on the contrary, I am apt to suspect that it is\nthe weakness of his cause which has disturbed his serenity. To tell us\nthat we can will ourselves immortal, or will God into existence, and\nthat all we need is the audacity to plunge into the unknown, whatever\nthe risks, reminds me of La Fontaine's parable of the frog--who thought\nhe could will himself into the size of a cow--with fatal results. The\nbeginning of wisdom is to recognize one's limitations. To tell a man\nthat he can _will_ things into existence is to do him an injury. Pitiful\nis the God, and chimerical the immortality that has no better foundation\nthan the whim of man.\n\nAccording to the doctrine of \"The will to believe\" there would be no God\nif there were no men to \"will\" his existence, and no immortality if men\ndid not desire it. This is theology dressed up as philosophy or science.\nHow was the world made? And the theologians answer, God said, \"Let there\nbe light, and there was light.\" How was God made? And the pragmatists\nanswer, \"Man said, let there be a God, and there was one.\" This is\ntrifling. If the word is not too harsh, I shall call it sophistry, or\nmental gymnastics, to which men never resort except when straight\nreasoning will not help them.\n\nSophistry is a plea of guilty. I was debating the other evening in a\nMilwaukee theater on the question of the responsibility for the burning\nof Joan of Arc. While listening to the defense of the gentleman who was\ntrying to prove that the Catholic Church was not responsible for her\nmartyrdom, I said to myself that such a defense would never have been\nthought of were it not for the fact that the old claim that the church\nof God cannot err had not broken down. In the same way the defense that\nthe bible should be taken allegorically, proves that the old position\nthat the bible is from cover to cover the word of God with every letter\nand punctuation, as well as word and meaning inspired, is no longer\ntenable. To say that the bible must not be taken literally is but\nanother way of saying that the bible is not true, or that you can make\nit mean what you please. Men never put up such a defense for anything\nunless they are driven to it by sheer desperation.\n\nMy third remark on the pragmatic philosophy of Professor James is that,\nbesides doing violence to our reason, his doctrine that an unseen world\nis indispensable to make life worth living, or to help make the world\nmoral, places man not only in an unenviable light, but it also does him\na great injustice. If it is true that a man will make a beast of himself\nif he finds out that he is not a God, I take the position that he is\nbeyond hope. Nothing can save him. But it is not true. It is a priestly\ntale that a man will not behave himself unless we can promise him the\nmoon, or the sun, or eternity. A man would only be a contemptible animal\nif he must be given toys and trinkets and sawdust dolls to divert his\nattention from mischief. The claim of the preachers that unless men are\nassured of black-eyed houris and golden harps, or at least,--some sort\nof a ghostly existence,--somewhere and at sometime in the future, they\nwill convert life into a debauch, is simply a falsehood. Man is not so\ndepraved as that. Indeed, the doctrine of total depravity was invented\nby the priests to create a demand for the offices of the church. The\npriest cannot afford to believe in human nature. If a man can save\nhimself, or if he can do good by his own effort, what need would there\nbe of the mysteries and the sacraments,--the rites and the dogmas?\n\nI had occasion to tell you a few Sundays ago that if a lily can be\nwhite, or a rose so wondrous fair, or a dog so loyal and heroic, without\ndickering with the universe for a future reward, man can do, at least,\nas much. Would this be expecting too much of him?\n\nIn France, there is, in one of the close-by suburbs of Paris, a cemetery\nfor dogs. Of course, no priest or pastor would think of officiating at\nthe interment of a dog, however useful or faithful the animal may have\nbeen. They are brought here by their owners and quietly buried. The\nvisitor finds here, however, many tokens of appreciation and gratitude\nfor the services and value of the dog to man. Little monuments are\nraised over the remains of some of the occupants of the modest graves.\nOne of these bears the inscription: \"He saved forty lives, and lost his\nown in the attempt to save the forty-first.\" He did his best without the\nhope of a future reward. Is man lower than the animal? Does he require\nthe help of the Holy Ghost, the holy angels, the holy Trinity, the holy\ninfallible church, and all the terrors of hell fire to make him prefer\nsense to nonsense, cleanliness to dirt, honor to disgrace, the respect\nof his fellows to their contempt, and a peaceful mind to one full of\nscorpions? Do we have to swing into existence fabled and mythical beings\nand worlds before we can induce a human being to be as natural as a\nplant and as faithful as a dog? The doctrine of total depravity is a\ndisgrace to those who have invented it, and a blight to those who\nbelieve in it. It is not true that we have to be put through acrobatic\nexercises,--make our reason turn somersaults, resort to\nsophistry,--become frantic with fear about our future,--postulate the\nexistence of ghosts, Gods, and celestial abodes before we can prefer the\ngood to the bad and the light to darkness. Supernaturalism is both\nnegative and destructive. It denies goodness, and it destroys in man the\npower of self-help. Von Humboldt's indignation seems pardonable, when he\nused the word \"infamous,\" to characterize the theologian's attempt to\nmake the well-being of the human race depend upon such supernatural\ngossip as he had to market.\n\nAnd what is the verdict of history on this question? Does the belief in\nGod and immortality make for morality? How then shall we explain the\ndark ages which were ages of faith, and why are not the Moslems, whose\nfaith in Allah and in a future life is very much stronger than ours, a\nmore moral people than the Europeans or Americans? Why was King Leopold,\nthe Christian, a moral leper to the hour of his death, while Socrates,\nthe pagan, who was uncertain about the future, has perfumed the\ncenturies with his virtues? Has the belief in the supernatural prevented\nthe criminal waste of human life, protected the child from the\nsweat-shop and the factory, or even robbed religion of its sting--the\nsting whose bite is mortal to tolerance, brotherhood and intellectual\nhonesty? There are excellent people who believe in the supernatural and\nequally excellent people who ignore the supernatural, from which it\nwould follow that excellence of character is independent of one's\nspeculations about either the eternal past, or the eternal future. It is\nnot true then that we have to prove to man that he has always existed,\nor that he shall always exist before we can make him see that the sunset\nis beautiful, or that the sea is vast, or that love is the greatest\nthing in the world.\n\nA man will be careful of his health whether he expects to live again or\nnot. He will avoid headaches, fevers, colds, anaemia, nervous\nprostrations and diseases of every kind which rack the body and make\nlife a misery, irrespective of his attitude to the question of survival\nafter death. The question of health, then, which is a very important\none, is independent of any supernatural belief. It would not affect our\nhealth a particle were the heavens empty or full of gods. In the same\nway, men will continue the culture of the mind irrespective of\ntheological beliefs. Will a man neglect the pleasures of the mind,\ndespise knowledge and remain content in his ignorance, if he cannot be\nsure that he is going to live forever? But if neither the culture of the\nbody nor that of the mind is in danger of being neglected, is there any\nreason to fear that the culture of the affections and the conscience\nwill suffer without a belief in an unseen world? We have only to look\ninto the motives which govern human actions to recover our confidence in\nthe essential soundness of human nature, and in the ability of morality\nto take care of itself without the help of ghosts and gods. You love\nyour country and you are willing to defend its institutions, if need be,\nwith your life, but is it because your country is immortal? Is America\ngoing to live forever? Is it going to have a future existence? And yet\nWashington and his soldiers loved it dearly and risked their lives for\nit. Were the ancient Greeks and Romans, to whom patriotism was a\nreligion, and who loved and fought for their country--fools, because\nthey did not first make sure that their country was going to live\nforever? You are devoted to art, you have built palaces for the\ntreasures of the brush and the chisel. You have paid fabulous prices for\nthe works of a Rembrandt and a Titian. Is it because these paintings are\nnever going to perish? Is the canvas which you adore immortal? You prize\nthe works of genius--of a Shakespeare, a Goethe, a Voltaire, a Darwin.\nYou have edifices of marble and steel in which to house the great books\nof the world. And yet a fire tomorrow may wipe them out of\nexistence--they may become lost, as many great works have been lost in\nthe past. Nevertheless, are they not precious while we have them? If a\nhumane society will interest itself in the welfare of the horse and the\ncat and the dog, which live but a few years; if the flower which blooms\nin the morning and fades in the evening can command our attention and\ndevotion--must a man be a god before we can take any interest in him?\nMust somebody be always whispering in our ears, \"Ye are gods; ye are\ngods,\" to prevent us from doing violence to ourselves or to our fellows?\nAnd men seek health for the present, not for the future. And they\ncultivate the mind to make life richer now and here. And love is desired\nbecause it makes each passing moment a thrill and an ecstasy. What then\nis the value of any speculation about the unseen world, since man can\ncare for his body, mind and heart, without venturing out on an ocean for\nwhich he has neither the sails nor the compass?\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBut the unseen world is necessary, the professor seems to think, in\norder to explain the suffering and the injustice in this. In my opinion,\nsuch a belief has done more to postpone the reform of present abuses\nthan anything else. The time to suppress injustice and to relieve human\nsuffering is now, not in some distant future,--here and not in an\nundiscovered country. The belief in God has tempted man to shirk his\nresponsibilities. He has left many things to be done by God which he\nshould have done himself. It is a nobler religion that tells man to do\nall he can now, and to do it himself. Moreover, how can what is wrong\nhere be made right in the next world? What, for instance, can make Joan\nof Arc's atrocious murder--a girl of nineteen, who had saved her\ncountry, roasted over a slow fire--right in heaven? What explanation can\nthe Deity give to us which shall reconcile us to so infamous a crime. A\nmillion eternities, it seems to me, cannot alter the character of that\nact. The deed cannot be undone. That frightful page cannot be torn from\nthe book of life. You cannot destroy the memory of that injustice; you\ncannot rub so foul a stain from the hands of even a God. Suppose God\nwere to say to us in the next world that this crime was necessary to the\nprogress of civilization. Would that satisfy us? Would we not still wish\nfor a God who could have contributed to the progress of civilization\nwithout resorting to so unspeakable a murder? And there you are. Another\nworld can never reconcile us to a policy that required the commission\nof crimes whose stench rises to our nostrils. What is wrong can never be\nmade right.\n\nYou remember that to illustrate the thought of Professor James, I spoke\nof my visit to the Pasteur Institute in Paris, where, in the vivisection\nhall, I saw the physicians operating on live rabbits. Professor James\nthinks that if the rabbit could see everything, it might say to the\nphysician, \"Thy will be done.\" But the rabbit might also say this: \"It\nis well to advance science and civilization; and if it is a part of the\n_scheme_ to make me contribute to it by my sufferings, I am resigned;\nbut what about the character of the _schemer_ who must torture to death\nsome of his creatures--slaughter with excruciating pain a portion of his\nfamily--in order to make secure the lives of the rest?\" The existence of\nevil in a world created by a perfect God is the rock upon which all\nreligions go to pieces. If God can prevent misery and crime, but prefers\nto work through them, he is to be feared; if he cannot help himself,\nthen he is to be pitied. Who would not rather be the rabbit on the\noperating table, with the knife in his flesh, than such a God! A God who\ncannot make a rose red except by dipping it in human blood can be sure\nthat no human being would ever envy him his office. On the last day of\njudgment, if such a day there be, it will not be the rabbit, or man, who\nwill fear the opening of the books; it will be God.\n\nAnd how do we know that things will be better in the unseen world?\nSuppose they should be worse? Jesus intimated that the next world would\nbe worse, for he says in Matthew 7:13-14, \"Wide is the gate, and broad\nis the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in\nthereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which\nleadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.\"\n\nSurely this is not an encouraging prospect. A future which offers\nhappiness to a small minority cannot be looked forward to with\nenthusiasm. Neither is the thought of a few saved and the many damned a\nconsolation. One of the oft-repeated claims is that the belief in God\nand immortality is such a happiness that he must be an enemy of his race\nwho would deprive people of it. Even Rationalists are said to envy the\nbeliever his peace of mind. But the truth is the very opposite of this.\nThere is abundant testimony to prove that of all people the real and\nconsistent believer is the most unhappy being in the world. The\nproverbial unhappiness of the Rationalist, like the proverbial death-bed\nhorrors of a Thomas Paine and a Voltaire, is a pure fabrication. While\nthere is absolutely nothing in Rationalism to make anybody miserable,\nsince it does away with fear, which is the only thing to fear,\nOrthodoxy, on the other hand, starts by not only calling this a vale of\ntears, but proceeds forthwith to make it so. If we were to place the\ngreatest known Christian saints on the stand to interrogate them on this\nsubject, they would one and all confirm our statement. Listen, for\ninstance, to the confession of Thomas a Kempis: \"Lord, I am not worthy\nof thy consolation.... Thou dealest justly with me when thou leavest me\npoor and desolate, for if I could shed tears as the sea, yet should I\nnot be worthy of thy consolation. I am worthy only to be scourged and\npunished.\"[A] These are not the words of a buoyant and happy soul. And\nlisten to the lamentation of John Bunyan: \"Sometimes I could for whole\ndays together feel my very body as well as my mind to shake and totter\nunder the sense of this dreadful judgment of God.... I felt also such a\nclogging and heat in my stomach by reason of this terror that I thought\nmy breast-bone would split asunder. Oh, how gladly would I have been\nanything but a man.\"[B] I could quote long chapters from the biographies\nof the saints to show the wretchedness, the despair and the agony of the\nbeliever, shuddering upon the brink of eternity--uncertain whether\nheaven or hell awaits to receive him. I could give you a similar chapter\nfrom my own experience. When I was much younger, I had implicit faith in\nthe bible and the unseen world. What was the effect of this belief upon\nme? Did it make me happy? I can never forget the moments of agony I\nspent on my knees, at the \"throne of grace.\" My pillow was often wet\nwith weeping over sins I had never committed, and fearing a depravity I\ncould never be guilty of. Christianity in its virile form took hold of\nmy young heart as the roots of a tree take hold of the earth in which\nthey grow. I was as sensitive and responsive to its influence as fire is\nto the wind that fans it into flame. \"Am I saved? How can I be sure that\nGod has forgiven me? Where would I open my eyes if I should die tonight?\nOh, God! what if I should after all be one of the reprobates--damned\nforever.\" Such was the terrible superstition that cheated me out of a\nthousand glorious moments, and made my youth a punishment to me. One day\na member of my church came to me in great distress of mind. He behaved\nlike one who had actually seen hell. \"I am damned, I am damned,\" he\ncried. \"God has forsaken me; there is no hope for me.\" If a wild beast\nhad its paws in his hair, or a hound its teeth in his flesh, he could\nnot have been more scared. If he could have only laughed at the stupid\nsuperstition, all the devils of his distorted imagination would have\nmelted into thin air.\n\n  [A] _Imitation_--III 52.\n\n  [B] Quoted by Cotter Morrison, _Service of Man_--34.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"Our religion does not trouble us that way,\" I hear the Christians say\nin reply. Of course not, they no longer believe in it. They let art,\nmusic, science, the drama, business, to divert their attention from this\nAsiatic fetish. Rationalism has dissipated the terrors of the future,\nand tinted the horizon with beauty and light. But let them believe in\nChristianity as their fathers believed in it, let them be sincere with\nit, and it will make life miserable for them as it has for thousands of\nothers. Yes, believe in Christianity as the Apostle Paul did, for\nexample, and you must agree with him, that, \"If in this life only we\nhave a hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.\" And listen to\nthe cry of despair from the lips of the Son of God: \"My God, My God, why\nhast Thou forsaken me?\" The nails in his hands and feet tore his flesh,\nbut it was the thought that he had been forsaken by God that broke his\nheart. Surely, if a belief in a future life could make anybody happy, it\nshould have made the death of Jesus a symphony, instead of a tragedy.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIn conclusion: Not God, nor the unseen world, but Truth is the sovereign\ngood. There is nothing more excellent. If there be philosophies, they\nshall pass away; if there be theologies, they shall pass away; if there\nbe creeds, cults, gods, they shall pass away. But Truth is _from_\neverlasting _to_ everlasting.\n\n     In my mind's eye, I see a wonderful building, something like the\n     Coliseum of ancient Rome. The galleries are black with people; tier\n     upon tier rise like waves the multitude of spectators who have come\n     to see a great contest. A great contest, indeed! A contest in which\n     all the world and all the centuries are interested. It is the\n     contest--the fight to death--between Truth and Error.\n\n     The door opens, and a slight, small, shy and insignificant looking\n     thing steps into the arena. It is Truth. The vast audience bursts\n     into hilarious and derisive laughter. Is this Truth? This\n     shuddering thing in tattered clothes, and almost naked? And the\n     house shakes again with mocking and hisses.\n\n     The door opens again, and Error enters,--clad in cloth of gold,\n     imposing in appearance, tall of stature, glittering with gems,\n     sleek and huge and ponderous, causing the building to tremble with\n     the thud of its steps. The audience is for a moment dazzled into\n     silence, then it breaks into applause, long and deafening.\n     \"Welcome!\" \"Welcome!\" is the greeting from the multitude.\n     \"Welcome!\" shout ten thousand throats.\n\n     The two contestants face each other. Error, in full armor,--backed\n     by the sympathies of the audience, greeted by the clamorous\n     cheering of the spectators; and Truth, scorned, scoffed at, and\n     _hated_. \"The issue is a foregone conclusion,\" murmurs the vast\n     audience. \"Error will trample Truth under its big feet.\"\n\n     The battle begins. The two clinch, separate, and clinch again.\n     Truth holds its own. The spectators are alarmed. Anxiety appears in\n     their faces. Their voices grow faint. Is it possible? Look! See!\n     There! Error recedes! It fears the gaze of Truth! It shuns its\n     beauteous eyes! Hear it squeak and scream as it feels Truth's\n     squeeze upon its wrists. Error is trying to break away from Truth's\n     grip. It is making for the door. It is gone!\n\n     The spectators are mute. Every tongue is smitten with the palsy.\n     The people bite their lips until they bleed. They cannot explain\n     what they have seen. \"Who would have believed it?\" \"Is it\n     possible?\"--they exclaim. But they can not doubt what their eyes\n     have seen. That puny and insignificant looking thing called Truth\n     has put ancient and entrenched Error, backed by the throne, the\n     altar, the army, the press, the people, and the gods--to rout.\n\nThe pursuit of truth! Is not that worth living for? To seek the truth,\nto love the truth, to live the truth? Can any religion offer more?\n\nWhat is the remedy for the pessimism that asks, \"Is life worth living?\"\nA sound mind in a sound body. There is no better preventive of that\ndepression of spirits whence proceed the diseases which menace life,\nand mar the happiness of man, than health--moral, intellectual,\nphysical--health; individual and social health. The highest ideal of\nChristianity is a man of sorrows. The highest ideal of Rationalism is a\nman of joy!\n\n\n\n\nTHE STORY OF MY MIND OR HOW I BECAME A RATIONALIST\n\n_Price, Fifty Cents_\n\n# In this latest publication of the Independent Religious Society, M. M.\nMangasarian describes his religious experience--how, starting as a\nCalvinist, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, and a pastor of\nthe Spring Garden Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, he thought and\nfought his way up to\n\nRATIONALISM\n\n# The book contains a dedication to \"My Children,\" in which the author\nsays:\n\n     \"I am going to put the story in writing, that you may have it with\n     you when I am gone, to remind you of the aims and interests for\n     which I lived, as well as to acquaint you with the most earnest and\n     intimate period in my career as a teacher of men.\"\n\n _ORDER THROUGH_\n THE INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS SOCIETY\n CHICAGO\n\n\nEARLIER PUBLICATIONS BY MR. MANGASARIAN\n\n =A New Catechism.= Fifth Edition, Revised and Enlarged, with Portrait\n     of Author. Price                                              $1.00\n\n =The Truth About Jesus: Is He a Myth?= A new book of 295 pages.\n     Illustrated. Cloth, $1.00; Paper                              $0.50\n\n =Mangasarian-Crapsey Debate on the Historicity of Jesus.= 25c.\n\n =Pearls.= (New Edition.) Brave Thoughts from Brave Minds. Selected\n     and arranged by M. M. Mangasarian. 25c. Presentation Edition,\n     limp leather                                                  $1.00\n\n\nA FEW LECTURES--10c A COPY\n\n Is the Morality of Jesus Sound?\n Rome-Rule in Ireland, with Postlude on Ferrer.\n How the Bible Was Invented.\n Morality Without God.\n\nSent postpaid on receipt of price. Ask for complete list.\n\n INDEPENDENT RELIGIOUS SOCIETY\n CHICAGO\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note:\n\n\nThe following is a list of changes made to the original. The first line\nis the original line, the second the corrected one.\n\n    other gods before me\" which is metaphysical and without\n    other gods before me,\" which is metaphysical and without\n\n    a _raison d'etre_. The part of wisdom as well as of courage then,\n    a _raison d'etre_. The part of wisdom as well as of courage then,\n\n    take an undue advantage of one's neighbors,\" \"Truth is not\n    take an undue advantage of one's neighbors. \"Truth is not\n\n    manoeuvreing can truth be shifted to a subordinate rank.\n    manoeuvring can truth be shifted to a subordinate rank.\n\n    frantic advice, and a man has to be in a panicy state of mind\n    frantic advice, and a man has to be in a panicky state of mind\n\n    because it makes each passing moment a thrill and an ecstacy.\n    because it makes each passing moment a thrill and an ecstasy.\n\n    straight is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth\n    strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth\n\n    instance, to the confession of Thomas A'Kempis: \"Lord, I\n    instance, to the confession of Thomas a Kempis: \"Lord, I","title":"Is Life Worth Living Without Immortality?: A Lecture Delivered Before the Independent Religious Society, Chicago","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":9207}