THE USE OF REASON
(Attempts to show that in the field to which reason applies we are compelled to use it, and are justified1 in trusting it.)
The great majority of people are brought up to believe that some particular set of dogmas are objects of faith, and that there are penalties more or less severe for the application of reason to these dogmas. What particular set it happens to be is a matter of geography; in a crowded modern city like New York, it is a matter of the particular block on which the child is born. A child born on Hester Street will be taught that his welfare depends upon his never eating meat and butter from the same dish. A child born on Tenth Avenue will be taught that it is a matter of his not eating meat on Fridays. A child born on Madison Avenue will be taught that it is a question of the precise metaphysical process by which bread is changed into human body and wine into human blood. Each of these children will be assured that his human reason is fallible, that it is extremely dangerous to apply it to this "sacred" subject, and that the proper thing to do is to accept the authority of some ancient tradition, or some institution, or some official, or some book for which a special sanction is claimed.
Has there ever been in the world any revelation, outside of or above human reason? Could there ever be such a thing? In order to test this possibility, select for yourself the most convincing way by which a special revelation could be handed down to mankind. Take any of the ancient orthodox ways, the finding of graven tablets on a mountain-top, or a voice speaking from a burning bush, or an angel appearing before a great concourse of people and handing out a written scroll2. Suppose that were to happen, let us say, at the next Yale-Harvard football game; suppose the news were to be flashed to the ends of the earth that God had thus presented to mankind an entirely3 new religion. What would be the process by which the people of London or Calcutta would decide upon that revelation? First, they would have to consider the question whether it was an American newspaper fake—by no means an easy question. Second, they would have to consider the chances of its being an optical delusion4. Then, assuming they accepted the sworn testimony5 of ten thousand mature and competent witnesses, they would have to consider the possibility of someone having invented a new kind of invisible aeroplane. Assuming they were convinced that it was really a supernatural being, they would next have to decide the chances of its being a visitor from Mars, or from the fourth dimension of space, or from the devil. In considering all this, they would necessarily have to examine the alleged6 revelation. What was the literary quality of it? What was the moral quality of it? What would be the effect upon mankind if the alleged revelation were to be universally adopted and applied7?
Manifestly, all these are questions for the human reason, the human judgment8; there is no other method of determining them, there would be nothing for any individual person, or for men as a whole to do, except to apply their best powers, and, as the phrase is, "make up their minds" about the matter. Reason would be the judge, and the new revelation would be the prisoner at the bar. Humanity might say, this is a real inspiration, we will submit ourselves to it and follow it, and allow no one from now on to question it. But inevitably9 there would be some who would say, "Tommyrot!" There would be others who would say, "This new revelation isn't working, it is repressing progress, it is stifling10 the mind." These people would stand up for their conviction, they would become martyrs11, and all the world would have to discuss them. And who would decide between them and the great mass of men? Reason, the judge, would decide.
It is perfectly12 true that human reason is fallible. Infallibility is an absolute, a concept of the mind, and not a reality. Life has not given us infallibility, any more than it has given us omniscience13, or omnipotence14, or any other of those attributes which we call divine. Life has given us powers, more or less weak, more or less strong, but all capable of improvement and development. Reason is the tool whereby mankind has won supremacy15 over the rest of the animal kingdom, and is gradually taking control of the forces of nature. It is the best tool we have, and because it is the best, we are driven irresistibly16 to use it. And how strange that some of us can find no better use for it than to destroy its own self! Visit one of the Jesuit fathers and hear him seek to persuade you that reason is powerless against faith and must abdicate17 to faith. You answer, "Yes, father, you have persuaded me. I admit the fallibility of my mortal powers; and I begin by applying my doubts of them to the arguments by which you have just convinced me. I was convinced, but of course I cannot be sure of a conviction, attained18 by fallible reason. Therefore I am just where I was before—except that I am no longer in position to be certain of anything."
You answer in good faith, and take up your hat and depart, closing the door of the good father's study behind you. But stop a moment, why do you close the door? You close the door because your reason tells you that otherwise the cold air outside will blow in and make the good father uncomfortable. You put your hat on, because your reason has not yet been applied to the problem of the cause of baldness. You step out onto the street, and when you hear a sudden noise, you step back onto the curbstone, because your reason tells you that an automobile19 is coming, and that on the sidewalk you are safe from it. So you go on, using your reason in a million acts of your life whereby your life is preserved and developed. And if anybody suggested that the fallibility of your reason should cause you to delay in front of an automobile, you would apply your reason to the problem of that person and decide that he was insane. And I say that just as there is insanity20 in everyday judgments21 and relationships, so there is insanity in philosophy, metaphysics and religion; the seed and source of all this kind of insanity being the notion that it is the duty of anybody to believe anything which cannot completely justify22 itself as reasonable.
Nowadays, as ideas are spreading, the champions of dogma are hard put to it, and you will find their minds a muddle23 of two points of view. The Jewish rabbi will strive desperately24 to think of some hygienic objection to the presence of meat and butter on the same plate; the Catholic priest will tell you that fish is a very wholesome25 article of food, and that anyhow we all eat too much; the Methodist and the Baptist and the Presbyterian will tell you that if men did not rest one day in seven their health would break down. Thus they justify faith by reason, and reconcile the conflict between science and theology. Accepting this method, I experiment and learn that it improves my digestion26 and adds to my working power if I play tennis on Sunday. I follow this indisputably rational form of conduct—and find myself in conflict with the "faith" of the ancient State of Delaware, which obliges me to serve a term in its state's prison for having innocently and unwittingly desecrated27 its day of holiness!
If you read Professor Bury's little book, "A History of Freedom of Thought," you will discover that there has been a long conflict over the right of men to use their minds—and the victory is not yet. The term "free thinker," which ought to be the highest badge a man could wear, is still almost everywhere throughout America a term of vague terror. In the State of California today there is a Criminal Syndicalism Act, which provides a maximum of fourteen years in jail for any person who shall write or publish or speak any words expressive28 of the idea that the United States government should be overthrown29 in the same way that it was established—that is, by force; only a few months ago the writer of this book was on the witness stand for two days, and had the painful, almost incredible experience of being battered30 and knocked about by an inquisitive31 district attorney, who cross-examined him as to every detail of his beliefs, and read garbled32 extracts from his published writings, in the effort to make it appear that he held some belief which might possibly prejudice the jury against him. The defendant33 in this case, a returned soldier who had spent three years as a volunteer in the trenches34, and had been twice wounded and once gassed, was accused, not merely of approving the Soviet35 form of government, but also of having printed uncomplimentary references to priests and religious institutions.
Nowadays it is the propertied class which has taken possession of the powers of government, and which presumes to censor36 the thinking of mankind in its own interest. But whether it be priestcraft or whether it be capitalism37 which seeks to bind38 the human mind, it comes to the same thing, and the effort must be met by the assertion that, in spite of errors and blunders, and the serious harm these may do, there is no way for men to advance save by using the best powers of thinking they possess, and proclaiming their conclusions to others. Speaking theologically for the moment, God has given us our reasoning powers, and also the impulse to use them, and it is inconceivable that He should seek to restrict their use, or should give to anyone the power to forbid their use. It is His truth which we seek, and His which we proclaim. In so doing we perform our highest act of faith, and we refuse to be troubled by the idea that for this service He will reward us by an eternity39 of sulphur and brimstone.
Throughout the remainder of this book it will be assumed that the reader accepts this point of view, or, at any rate, that he is willing for purposes of experiment to give it a trial and see where it leads him. We shall proceed to consider the problems of human life in the light of reason, to determine how they come to be, and how they can be solved.
点击收听单词发音
1 justified | |
a.正当的,有理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 scroll | |
n.卷轴,纸卷;(石刻上的)漩涡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 delusion | |
n.谬见,欺骗,幻觉,迷惑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 inevitably | |
adv.不可避免地;必然发生地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 stifling | |
a.令人窒息的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 martyrs | |
n.martyr的复数形式;烈士( martyr的名词复数 );殉道者;殉教者;乞怜者(向人诉苦以博取同情) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 omniscience | |
n.全知,全知者,上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 omnipotence | |
n.全能,万能,无限威力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 supremacy | |
n.至上;至高权力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 irresistibly | |
adv.无法抵抗地,不能自持地;极为诱惑人地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 abdicate | |
v.让位,辞职,放弃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 attained | |
(通常经过努力)实现( attain的过去式和过去分词 ); 达到; 获得; 达到(某年龄、水平、状况) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 automobile | |
n.汽车,机动车 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 insanity | |
n.疯狂,精神错乱;极端的愚蠢,荒唐 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 judgments | |
判断( judgment的名词复数 ); 鉴定; 评价; 审判 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 muddle | |
n.困惑,混浊状态;vt.使混乱,使糊涂,使惊呆;vi.胡乱应付,混乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 desperately | |
adv.极度渴望地,绝望地,孤注一掷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 wholesome | |
adj.适合;卫生的;有益健康的;显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 digestion | |
n.消化,吸收 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 desecrated | |
毁坏或亵渎( desecrate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 expressive | |
adj.表现的,表达…的,富于表情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 overthrown | |
adj. 打翻的,推倒的,倾覆的 动词overthrow的过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 battered | |
adj.磨损的;v.连续猛击;磨损 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 inquisitive | |
adj.求知欲强的,好奇的,好寻根究底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 garbled | |
adj.(指信息)混乱的,引起误解的v.对(事实)歪曲,对(文章等)断章取义,窜改( garble的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 defendant | |
n.被告;adj.处于被告地位的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 trenches | |
深沟,地沟( trench的名词复数 ); 战壕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 Soviet | |
adj.苏联的,苏维埃的;n.苏维埃 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 censor | |
n./vt.审查,审查员;删改 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 capitalism | |
n.资本主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 bind | |
vt.捆,包扎;装订;约束;使凝固;vi.变硬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 eternity | |
n.不朽,来世;永恒,无穷 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |