a point beyond which the opposite tendency cannot be
carried.

Assume, for example, that a religion existed of a grossly anti-social
character, one that teaches doctrines that are subversive of the general
social well-being. One of two things must result. If the religion is
strong enough to enforce its teaching the society it dominates will
disappear, and the religion will die out with it. If, on the other hand,
it cannot enforce its teaching, or can get it accepted only in a
modified form, then either the religion disappears in its original form,
or it is modified to get itself established. To live, religion must
establish some sort of harmony between its teachings and the conditions
of life. It may retard the development of life, but it must not retard
to the point of destruction. This is all that is really involved in what
is called the purification of religious teaching. In reality there is no
such thing. The purification is a modification, and it is modified in
order that it may become acceptable to the society in which it is
existing. The ascetic epidemic, the various disgusting sects that have
sprung into existence from time to time during the course of Christian
history, have all died out from this cause. As with the individual, so
with society, the forces of which we are conscious generally move upon
the surface. Of the underlying ones we are mostly unaware.

The truth is, then, that behind all our consciously elaborated theories
of life there are operative the unconscious or sub-conscious forces of
evolution. There is, of course, a certain area of conduct in which
speculative opinions play their part, and where actions may be
arbitrarily classed as good or bad. But this area is, of necessity,
limited, and for the reasons that have been given above. Properly
understood morality is not something very abstract, but something that
is very concrete. The underlying reason for morality is always the same,
and we are compelled to hark back to it for justification. And no
rejection of religion can alter the basis upon which morality rests.

The proposition that Atheist, Agnostic, and Theist breathe the same
atmosphere and are affected by the same influences is, therefore, one
that is two-edged. If our intellectual atmosphere is saturated with
religious influences, it is also saturated with social influences of a
much more fundamental character, and which have been perpetually
correcting religious extravagances. And i