第六章
第4段
And there is this difference between the matter of aims and the matter of methods, that to judge of the aims of a thing like the Salvation Army is very difficult, to judge of their ritual and atmosphere very easy. No one, perhaps, but a sociologist can see whether General Booth's housing scheme is right. But any healthy person can see that banging brass cymbals together must be right. A page of statistics, a plan of model dwellings, anything which is rational, is always difficult for the lay mind. But the thing which is irrational any one can understand. That is why religion came so early into the world and spread so far, while science came so late into the world and has not spread at all. History unanimously attests the fact that it is only mysticism which stands the smallest chance of being understanded of the people. Common sense has to be kept as an esoteric secret in the dark temple of culture. And so while the philanthropy of the Salvationists and its genuineness may be a reasonable matter for the discussion of the doctors, there can be no doubt about the genuineness of their brass bands, for a brass band is purely spiritual, and seeks only to quicken the internal life. The object of philanthropy is to do good; the object of religion is to be good, if only for a moment, amid a crash of brass.
目標與方法這兩者間有差異，因此要判斷救世軍這組織的目標並不容易，但判斷他們的儀式與氣氛則十分簡單。或許除了社會學家外，沒有人知道究竟卜將軍（William Booth、救世軍創辦人）的居住政策是否正確，但任何身心健全的人應都知道鳴鑼敲鈸是對的。統計數據、住房藍圖，對於平凡老百姓而言，任何說理的論據總是難懂的。但「不講理」的表達，對任何人而言都簡單易懂。這是為什麼宗教早早就進入世界，並散佈到四處，而科學卻這麼晚才走上世界舞台，並且未廣佈。歷史明白證明，只有神秘主義稍有機會被人所理解。常識得被當成深奧秘密般藏在文化的神秘殿堂裡。因此當專家們會爭辯討論救世軍的善行以及他們是否有真誠無偽的愛心，他們的銅管樂隊的真實性卻毋庸置疑，因為這銅管樂隊純然是屬靈的，並且全然是為了振奮、喚醒人的內心。善行的目的是做好事，宗教的目的是成為善，即使得在一陣銅鐵金屬的碰撞聲中才可達成這目的。
第5段
And the same antithesis exists about another modern religion—I mean the religion of Comte, generally known as Positivism, or the worship of humanity. Such men as Mr. Frederic Harrison, that brilliant and chivalrous philosopher, who still, by his mere personality, speaks for the creed, would tell us that he offers us the philosophy of Comte, but not all Comte's fantastic proposals for pontiffs and ceremonials, the new calendar, the new holidays and saints' days. He does not mean that we should dress ourselves up as priests of humanity or let off fireworks because it is Milton's birthday. To the solid English Comtist all this appears, he confesses, to be a little absurd. To me it appears the only sensible part of Comtism. As a philosophy it is unsatisfactory. It is evidently impossible to worship humanity, just as it is impossible to worship the Savile Club; both are excellent institutions to which we may happen to belong. But we perceive clearly that the Savile Club did not make the stars and does not fill the universe. And it is surely unreasonable to attack the doctrine of the Trinity as a piece of bewildering mysticism, and then to ask men to worship a being who is ninety million persons in one God, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
另一個現代宗教也適用此對比，我指的是孔德的宗教，這宗教通常被稱為實證主義，或可說是對「人本精神」（人性）的敬拜。有些人，例如哈里森（Frederic Harrison、英國法學家與歷史學家），這位才華洋溢、仁德公正的哲學家，直到今日仍在宣講著孔德宗教的信條，他會說他向我們推薦孔德的哲學，但不是所有孔德提出的宗教階級制度與儀式，不是新的月曆、假期或是聖哲紀念日，他也不是指我們應該穿上人本精神的祭司服，或是在彌爾頓生日時施放煙火慶祝。對這位死忠的英格蘭孔德支持者而言，他坦言，這一切的確有些荒謬。但對我而言，這是孔德主義唯一合理的部分。孔德主義作為一種哲學實在未達令人滿意的標準。很明顯的，人本精神、人性不可能被崇拜，這就好像我們不可能崇拜薩弗俱樂部（Savile Club）一樣。這兩者都是絕佳的體制，並切我們可能碰且都是成員，但我們都清楚明白，薩弗俱樂部並未創造星辰、填滿宇宙。攻擊三位一體教義，說這是令人困惑的神秘主義，然後要求人崇拜一個包含九千萬人口的宗教神，並說這毫不混淆人也未分裂本質，這樣做法怎會合理。
＝＝
留言
張貼留言