orthodoxy-第20部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





on　the　spur　of　the　moment；　〃Why　do　you　prefer　civilization　to　savagery？〃



he　would　look　wildly　round　at　object　after　object；　and　would　only　be



able　to　answer　vaguely；　〃Why；　there　is　that　bookcase　。　。　。　and　the



coals　in　the　coal…scuttle　。　。　。　and　pianos　。　。　。　and　policemen。〃　



The　whole　case　for　civilization　is　that　the　case　for　it　is　complex。　



It　has　done　so　many　things。　　But　that　very　multiplicity　of　proof



which　ought　to　make　reply　overwhelming　makes　reply　impossible。







　　　　　There　is；　therefore；　about　all　complete　conviction　a　kind



of　huge　helplessness。　　The　belief　is　so　big　that　it　takes　a　long



time　to　get　it　into　action。　　And　this　hesitation　chiefly　arises；



oddly　enough；　from　an　indifference　about　where　one　should　begin。　



All　roads　lead　to　Rome；　which　is　one　reason　why　many　people　never



get　there。　　In　the　case　of　this　defence　of　the　Christian　conviction



I　confess　that　I　would　as　soon　begin　the　argument　with　one　thing



as　another；　I　would　begin　it　with　a　turnip　or　a　taximeter　cab。　



But　if　I　am　to　be　at　all　careful　about　making　my　meaning　clear；



it　will；　I　think；　be　wiser　to　continue　the　current　arguments



of　the　last　chapter；　which　was　concerned　to　urge　the　first　of



these　mystical　coincidences；　or　rather　ratifications。　　All　I　had



hitherto　heard　of　Christian　theology　had　alienated　me　from　it。　



I　was　a　pagan　at　the　age　of　twelve；　and　a　complete　agnostic　by　the



age　of　sixteen；　and　I　cannot　understand　any　one　passing　the　age



of　seventeen　without　having　asked　himself　so　simple　a　question。　



I　did；　indeed；　retain　a　cloudy　reverence　for　a　cosmic　deity



and　a　great　historical　interest　in　the　Founder　of　Christianity。　



But　I　certainly　regarded　Him　as　a　man；　though　perhaps　I　thought　that；



even　in　that　point；　He　had　an　advantage　over　some　of　His　modern　critics。　



I　read　the　scientific　and　sceptical　literature　of　my　timeall　of　it；



at　least；　that　I　could　find　written　in　English　and　lying　about；



and　I　read　nothing　else；　I　mean　I　read　nothing　else　on　any　other



note　of　philosophy。　　The　penny　dreadfuls　which　I　also　read



were　indeed　in　a　healthy　and　heroic　tradition　of　Christianity；



but　I　did　not　know　this　at　the　time。　　I　never　read　a　line　of



Christian　apologetics。　　I　read　as　little　as　I　can　of　them　now。　



It　was　Huxley　and　Herbert　Spencer　and　Bradlaugh　who　brought　me



back　to　orthodox　theology。　　They　sowed　in　my　mind　my　first　wild



doubts　of　doubt。　　Our　grandmothers　were　quite　right　when　they　said



that　Tom　Paine　and　the　free…thinkers　unsettled　the　mind。　　They　do。　



They　unsettled　mine　horribly。　　The　rationalist　made　me　question



whether　reason　was　of　any　use　whatever；　and　when　I　had　finished



Herbert　Spencer　I　had　got　as　far　as　doubting　（for　the　first　time）



whether　evolution　had　occurred　at　all。　　As　I　laid　down　the　last　of



Colonel　Ingersoll's　atheistic　lectures　the　dreadful　thought　broke



across　my　mind；　〃Almost　thou　persuadest　me　to　be　a　Christian。〃　　I　was



in　a　desperate　way。







　　　　　This　odd　effect　of　the　great　agnostics　in　arousing　doubts



deeper　than　their　own　might　be　illustrated　in　many　ways。　



I　take　only　one。　　As　I　read　and　re…read　all　the　non…Christian



or　anti…Christian　accounts　of　the　faith；　from　Huxley　to　Bradlaugh；



a　slow　and　awful　impression　grew　gradually　but　graphically



upon　my　mindthe　impression　that　Christianity　must　be　a　most



extraordinary　thing。　　For　not　only　（as　I　understood）　had　Christianity



the　most　flaming　vices；　but　it　had　apparently　a　mystical　talent



for　combining　vices　which　seemed　inconsistent　with　each　other。　



It　was　attacked　on　all　sides　and　for　all　contradictory　reasons。　



No　sooner　had　one　rationalist　demonstrated　that　it　was　too　far



to　the　east　than　another　demonstrated　with　equal　clearness　that　it



was　much　too　far　to　the　west。　　No　sooner　had　my　indignation　died



down　at　its　angular　and　aggressive　squareness　than　I　was　called　up



again　to　notice　and　condemn　its　enervating　and　sensual　roundness。　



In　case　any　reader　has　not　come　across　the　thing　I　mean；　I　will　give



such　instances　as　I　remember　at　random　of　this　self…contradiction



in　the　sceptical　attack。　　I　give　four　or　five　of　them；　there　are



fifty　more。







　　　　　Thus；　for　instance；　I　was　much　moved　by　the　eloquent　attack



on　Christianity　as　a　thing　of　inhuman　gloom；　for　I　thought



（and　still　think）　sincere　pessimism　the　unpardonable　sin。　



Insincere　pessimism　is　a　social　accomplishment；　rather　agreeable



than　otherwise；　and　fortunately　nearly　all　pessimism　is　insincere。　



But　if　Christianity　was；　as　these　people　said；　a　thing　purely



pessimistic　and　opposed　to　life；　then　I　was　quite　prepared　to　blow



up　St。　Paul's　Cathedral。　　But　the　extraordinary　thing　is　this。　



They　did　prove　to　me　in　Chapter　I。　（to　my　complete　satisfaction）



that　Christianity　was　too　pessimistic；　and　then；　in　Chapter　II。；



they　began　to　prove　to　me　that　it　was　a　great　deal　too　optimistic。　



One　accusation　against　Christianity　was　that　it　prevented　men；



by　morbid　tears　and　terrors；　from　seeking　joy　and　liberty　in　the　bosom



of　Nature。　　But　another　accusation　was　that　it　comforted　men　with　a



fictitious　providence；　and　put　them　in　a　pink…and…white　nursery。　



One　great　agnostic　asked　why　Nature　was　not　beautiful　enough；



and　why　it　was　hard　to　be　free。　　Another　great　agnostic　objected



that　Christian　optimism；　〃the　garment　of　make…believe　woven　by



pious　hands；〃　hid　from　us　the　fact　that　Nature　was　ugly；　and　that



it　was　impossible　to　be　free。　　One　rationalist　had　hardly　done



calling　Christianity　a　nightmare　before　another　began　to　call　it



a　fool's　paradise。　　This　puzzled　me；　the　charges　seemed　inconsistent。　



Christianity　could　not　at　once　be　the　black　mask　on　a　white　world；



and　also　the　white　mask　on　a　black　world。　　The　state　of　the　Christian



could　not　be　at　once　so　comfortable　that　he　was　a　coward　to　cling



to　it；　and　so　uncomfortable　that　he　was　a　fool　to　stand　it。　



If　it　falsified　human　vision　it　must　falsify　it　one　way　or　another；



it　could　not　wear　both　green　and　rose…coloured　spectacles。　



I　rolled　on　my　tongue　with　a　terrible　joy；　as　did　all　young　men



of　that　time；　the　taunts　which　Swinburne　hurled　at　the　dreariness　of



the　creed







　　　　　〃Thou　hast　conquered；　O　pale　Galilaean；　the　world　has　grown



gray　with　Thy　breath。〃







But　when　I　read　the　same　poet's　accounts　of　paganism　（as



in　〃Atalanta〃）；　I　gathered　that　the　world　was；　if　possible；



more　gray　before　the　Galilean　breathed　on　it　than　afterwards。　



The　poet　maintained；　indeed；　in　the　abstract；　that　life　itself



was　pitch　dark。　　And　yet；　somehow；　Christianity　had　darkened　it。　



The　very　man　who　denounced　Christianity　for　pessimism　was　himself



a　pessimist。　　I　thought　there　must　be　something　wrong。　　And　it　did



for　one　wild　moment　cross　my　mind　that；　perhaps；　those　might　not　be



the　very　best　judges　of　the　relation　of　religion　to　happiness　who；



by　their　own　account；　had　neither　one　nor　the　other。







　　　　　It　must　be　understood　that　I　did　not　conclude　hastily　that　the



accusations　were　false　or　the　accusers　fools。　　I　simply　deduced



that　Christianity　must　be　something　even　weirder　and　wickeder



than　they　made　out。　　A　thing　might　have　these　two　opposite　vices；



but　it　must　be　a　rather　queer　thing　if　it　did。　　A　man　might　be　too　fat



in　one　place　and　too　thin　in　another；　but　he　would　be　an　odd　shape。　



At　this　point　my　thoughts　were　only　of　the　odd　shape　of　the　Christian



religion；　I　did　not　allege　any　odd　shape　in　the　rationalistic　mind。







　　　　　Here　is　another　case　of　the　same　kind。　　I　felt　that　a　strong



case　against　Christianity　lay　in　the　charge　that　there　is　something



timid；　monkish；　and　unmanly　about　all　that　is　called　〃Christian；〃



especially　in　its　attitude　towards　resistance　and　fighting。　



The　great　sceptics　of　the　nineteenth　century　were　largely　virile。　



Bradlaugh　in　an　expansive　way；　Huxley；　in　a　reticent　way；



were　decidedly　men。　　In　comparison；　it　did　seem　tenable　that　there



was　something　weak　and　over　patient　about　Christian　counsels。　



The　Gospel　paradox　about　the　other　cheek；　the　fact　that　priests



never　fought；　a　hundred　things　made　plausible　the　accusation



that　Christianity　was　an　attempt　to　make　a　man　too　like　a　sheep。　



I　read　it　and　believed　it；　and　if　I　had　read　nothing　different；



I　should　have　gone　on　believing　it。　　But　I　read　something　very　different。　



I　turned　the　next　page　in　my　agnostic　manual；　and　my　brain　turned



up…side　down。　　Now　I　found　that　I　was　to　hate　Christianity　not　for



fighting　too　little；　but　for　fighting　too　much。　　Christianity；　it　seemed；



was　the　mother　of　wars。　　Christianity　had　deluged　the　world　with　blood。　



I　had　got　thoroughly　angry　with　the　Christian；　because　he　never



was　angry。　　And　now　I　was　told　to　be　angry　with　him　because　his



anger　had　been　the　most　huge　and　horrible　thing　in　human　history；



because　his　anger　had　soaked　the　earth　and　smoked　to　the　sun。　



The　very　people　who　reproached　Christianity　with　the　meekness　and



non…resistance　of　the　monasteries　were　the　very　people　who　reproached



it　also　with　the　violence　and　valour　of　the　Crusades。　　It　was　the



fault　of　poor　old　Christianity　（somehow　or　other）　both　that　Edward



the　Confessor　did　not　fight　and　that　Richard　Coeur　de　Leon　did。　



The　Quakers　（we　were　told）　were　the　only　characteristic　Christians；



and　yet　the　massacres　of　Cromwell　and　Alva　were　characteristic



Christian　crimes。　　What　could　it　all　mean？　　What　was　this　Christianity



which　always　forbade　war　and　always　produced　wars？　　What　co