God and my Neighbour - novelonlinefull.com
You’re read light novel God and my Neighbour Part 32 online at NovelOnlineFull.com. Please use the follow button to get notification about the latest chapter next time when you visit NovelOnlineFull.com. Use F11 button to read novel in full-screen(PC only). Drop by anytime you want to read free – fast – latest novel. It’s great if you could leave a comment, share your opinion about the new chapters, new novel with others on the internet. We’ll do our best to bring you the finest, latest novel everyday. Enjoy
Suppose I say this thing is not true, and to believe anything which is untrue is useless. Then, the believer may justly demand my reasons. But he has no right to ask me for a new dream in place of the old one. I am not a prophet, with promises of crowns and glories in my gift.
But yet I will answer this queer question as fully as I can.
I do not say there is no G.o.d. I do not say there is no "Heaven," nor that the soul is not immortal. There is not enough evidence to justify me in making such a.s.sertions.
I only say, on those subjects, that I do not _know_.
I do not know about those things. There may be a G.o.d, there may be a "Heaven," there may be an immortal soul. And a man might accept all I say about religion without giving up any hope his faith may bid him hold as to a future life.
As to those "counsels of despair" the question puzzles me. Despair of what?
Let me put the matter as I see it. I think sometimes, in a dubious way, that perhaps there may be a life beyond the grave. And that is interesting. But I think my stronger, and deeper, and more permanent feeling is that when we die we die finally, and for us there is no more life at all. That is, I suppose, my real belief--or supposition. But do I despair? Why should I? The idea of immortality does not elate me very much. As I said just now, it is interesting. But I am not excited about it. If there is another innings, we will go in and play our best; and we hope we shall be very much better and kinder than we have been. But if it is sleep: well, sleep is rest, and as I feel that I have had a really good time, on the whole, I should consider it greedy to cry because I could not have it all over again. That is how I feel about it. Despair?
I am one of the happiest old fogeys in all London. I have found life agreeable and amusing, and I'm glad I came. But I am not so infatuated with life that I should care to go back and begin it all again. And though a new start, in a new world, would be--yes, interesting--I am not going to howl because old Daddy Death says it is bed-time. I think somebody, or something, has been very good to allow me to come in and see the fun, and stay so long, especially as I came in, so to speak "on my face." But to beg for another invitation would be cheeky. Some of you want such a lot for nothing.
"But," you may say, "the poor, the failures, the wretched--what of them?" And I answer: "Ah! that is one of the weak points of _your_ religion, not of mine." Consider these unhappy ones, what do you offer them? You offer them an everlasting bliss, not because they were starved or outraged here--not at all. For your religion admits the probability that those who came into this world worst equipped, who have here been most unfortunate, and to whom G.o.d and man have behaved most unjustly, will stand a far greater chance of a future of woe than of happiness.
No. According to your religion, those of the poor or the weak who get to Heaven will get there, not because they have been wronged and must be righted, but because they believe that Jesus Christ can save them.
Now, contrast that awful muddle of unreason and injustice with what you call my "counsels of despair." I say there may be a future life and there may not be a future life. If there is a future life, a man will deserve it no less, and enjoy it no less, for having been happy here.
If there is no future life, he who has been unhappy here will have lost both earthly happiness and heavenly hope.
Therefore, I say, it is our duty to see that all our fellow-creatures are as happy here as we can make them.
Therefore I say to my fellow-creatures, "Do not consent to suffer, and to be wronged in this world, for it is immoral and weak so to submit; but hold up your heads, and demand your rights, here and now, and leave the rest to G.o.d, or to Fate."
You see, I am not trying to rob any man of his hope of Heaven; I am only trying to inspire his hope on earth.
But I have been asked whether I think it right and wise to "shake the faith of the poor working man--the faith that has helped him so long."
What has this faith helped him to do? To bear the ills and the wrongs of this life more patiently, in the hope of a future reward? Is that the idea? But I do not want the working man to endure patiently the ills and wrongs of this life. I want him, for his own sake, his wife's sake, his children's sake, and for the sake of right and progress, to demand justice, and to help in the work of amending the conditions of life on earth.
No, I do not want to rob the working-man of his faith: I want to awaken his faith--in himself.
Religion promises us a future Heaven, where we shall meet once more those "whom we have loved long since and lost awhile," and that is the most potent lure that could be offered to poor humanity.
How much of the so-called "universal instinct of belief" arises from that pathetic human yearning for reunion with dear friends, sweet wives, or pretty children "lost awhile"? It is human love and natural longing for the dead darlings, whose wish is father to the thought of Heaven.
Before that pa.s.sionate sentiment reason itself would almost stand abashed: were reason antagonistic to the "larger hope"--which none can prove.
Few of us can keep our emotions from overflowing the bounds of reason in such a case. The poor, tearful desire lays a pale hand on reason's lips and gazes wistfully into the mysterious abyss of the Great Silence.
So I say of that "larger hope," cherish it if you can, and if you feel it necessary to your peace of mind. But do not mistake a hope for a certainty. No priest, nor pope, nor prophet can tell you more about that mystery than you know. It is a riddle, and your guess or mine may be as near as that of a genius. We can only guess. We do not know.
Is it wise, then, to sell even a fraction of your liberty of thought or deed for a paper promise which the Bank of Futurity may fail to honour?
Is it wise, is it needful, to abandon a single right, to abate one just demand, to neglect one possibility of happiness here and now, in order to fulfil the conditions laid down for the attainment of that promised Heaven by a crowd of contradictory theologians who know no more about G.o.d or about the future than we know ourselves?
Death has dropped a curtain of mystery between us and those we love. No theologian knows, nor ever did know, what is hidden behind that veil.
Let us, then, do our duty here, try to be happy here, try to make others happy here, and when the curtain lifts for us--we shall see.
CONCLUSION THE PARTING OF THE WAYS
I have been asked why I have "gone out of my way to attack religion,"
why I do not "confine myself to my own sphere and work for Socialism, and what good I expect to do by pulling down without building up."
In reply I beg to say:
1. That I have not "gone out of my way" to attack religion. It was because I found religion _in_ my way that I attacked it.
2. That I am working for Socialism when I attack a religion which is hindering Socialism.
3. That we must pull down before we can build up, and that I hope to do a little building, if only on the foundation.
But these questions arose from a misconception of my position and purpose.
I have been called an "Infidel," a Socialist, and a Fatalist. Now, I am an Agnostic, or Rationalist, and I am a Determinist, and I am a Socialist. But if I were asked to describe myself in a single word, I should call myself a Humanist.
Socialism, Determinism, and Rationalism are factors in the sum; and the sum is Humanism.
Briefly, my religion is to do the best I can for humanity. I am a Socialist, a Determinist, and a Rationalist because I believe that Socialism, Determinism, and Rationalism will be beneficial to mankind.
I oppose the Christian religion because I do not think the Christian religion is beneficial to mankind, and because I think it is an obstacle in the way of Humanism.
I am rather surprised that men to whom my past work is well known should suspect me of making a wanton and purposeless attack upon religion.
My attack is not wanton, but deliberate; not purposeless, but very purposeful and serious. I am not acting irreligiously, but religiously.
I do not oppose Christianity because it is good, but because it is not good enough.
There are two radical differences between Humanism and Christianity.
Christianity concerns itself with G.o.d and Man, putting G.o.d first and Man last.
Humanism concerns itself solely with Man, so that Man is its first and last care. That is one radical difference.
Then, Christianity accepts the doctrine of Free Will, with its consequent rewards and punishments; while Humanism embraces Determinist doctrines, with their consequent theories of brotherhood and prevention.
And that is another radical difference.
Because the Christian regards the hooligan, the thief, the wanton, and the drunkard as men and women who have done wrong. But the Humanist regards them as men and women who have been wronged.
The Christian remedy is to punish crime and to preach repentance and salvation to "sinners." The Humanist remedy is to remove the causes which lead or drive men into crime, and so to prevent the manufacture of "sinners."
Let us consider the first difference. Christianity concerns itself with the relations of Man to G.o.d, as well as with the relations between man and man. It concerns itself with the future life as well as with the present life.
Now, he who serves two causes cannot serve each or both of them as well as he could serve either of them alone.
He who serves G.o.d and Man will not serve Man as effectually as he who gives himself wholly to the service of Man.