FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28  
29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   >>   >|  
m sure I don't know. I think Lady Fritterly called him a codger. _Lord Fondleton_. Ah, he looks like it,--and a rum one at that, as our American cousins say. _Mrs Gloring_. Hush! Mr Germsell is going to begin. _Mr Germsell_. Mrs Allmash asked me last night whether my thoughts had been directed to the topic which is uppermost just now in so many minds in regard to the religion of the future, and I ventured to tell her that it would be found to be contained in the generalised expediency of the past. _Mr Fussle_. Pardon me, but the religion of the future must be the result of an evolutionary process, and I don't see how generalisations of past expediency are to help the evolution of humanity. _Germsell_. They throw light upon it; and the study of the evolutionary process so far teaches us how we may evolve in the future. For instance, you have only got to think of evolution as divided into moral, astronomic, geologic, biologic, psychologic, sociologic, aesthetic, and so forth, and you will find that there is always an evolution of the parts into which it divides itself, and that therefore there is but one evolution going on everywhere after the same manner. The work of science has been not to extend our experience, for that is impossible, but to systematise it; and in that systematisation of it will be found the religion of which we are in search. _Drygull_. May I ask why you deem it impossible that our experience can be extended? _Germsell_. Because it has itself defined its limits. The combined experience of humanity, so far as its earliest records go, has been limited by laws, the nature of which have been ascertained: it is impossible that it should be transcended without violation of the conclusions arrived at by positive science. _Drygull_. I can more easily understand that the conclusions arrived at by men of science should be limited, than that the experience of humanity should be confined by those conclusions; but I fail to perceive why those philosophers should deny the existence of certain human faculties, because they don't happen to possess them themselves. I think I know a Rishi who can produce experiences which would scatter all their conclusions to the winds, when the whole system which is built upon them would collapse. _Mrs Gloring_ [_aside to_ Lord Fondleton]. Pray, Lord Fondleton, can you tell me what a Rishi is? _Lord Fondleton_. A man who has got into higher stat
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28  
29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

experience

 
Germsell
 
conclusions
 

evolution

 

Fondleton

 

humanity

 

future

 

religion

 
impossible
 

science


evolutionary
 
process
 

expediency

 

arrived

 

limited

 

Drygull

 

Gloring

 
transcended
 

violation

 

nature


ascertained

 
called
 
Fritterly
 

confined

 

understand

 

easily

 
positive
 

codger

 

extended

 

Because


defined

 

records

 

earliest

 

combined

 

limits

 

system

 

collapse

 

higher

 
scatter
 

experiences


faculties

 

existence

 

perceive

 
philosophers
 
produce
 
happen
 

possess

 

search

 

systematisation

 

teaches