e Value of Free ought

How to Become a Truth-Seeker and

Break the Chain of Mental Slavery
Bertrand Russell
Tc cxprcssion lrcc thought is oltcn uscd as il it mcant mcrcly
opposition to thc prcvailing orthodoxy. 8ut this is only a symptom
ol lrcc thought, lrcqucnt, but invariablc. Frcc thought mcans
thinking lrcclyas lrccly, at lcast, as is possiblc lor a human bcing.
Tc pcrson who is lrcc in any rcspcct is lrcc from somcthing, what is
thc lrcc thinkcr lrcc lrom: To bc worthy ol thc namc, hc must bc
lrcc ol two things: thc lorcc ol tradition, and thc tyranny ol his own
passions. No onc is completely lrcc lrom cithcr, but in thc mcasurc
ol a mans cmancipation hc dcscrvcs to bc callcd a lrcc thinkcr. A
man is not to bc dcnicd this titlc bccausc hc happcns, on somc point,
to agrcc with thc thcologians ol his country. An Arab who, starting
lrom thc rst principlcs ol human rcason, is ablc to dcducc that
thc Koran was not crcatcd, but cxistcd ctcrnally in hcavcn, may bc
countcd as a lrcc thinkcr, providcd hc is willing to listcn to countcr
argumcnts and subjcct his ratiocination to critical scrutiny. n thc
samc conditions, a uropcan who, lrom a dcnition ol bcncvolcncc,
is ablc to show that a bcncvolcnt city will subjcct inlants to an
ctcrnity ol tormcnt il thcy dic bclorc somc onc sprinklcs thcm with
watcr to thc accompanimcnt ol ccrtain magical words, will havc to
bc rcgardcd as satislying our dcnition. Vhat makcs a lrcc thinkcr is
not his bclicls, but thc way in which hc holds thcm. !l hc holds thcm
bccausc his cldcrs told himthcy wcrc truc whcn hc was young, or il hc
holds thcm bccausc il hc did not hc would bc unhappy, his thought
is not lrcc, but il hc holds thcm bccausc, altcr carclul thought, hc
nds a balancc ol cvidcncc in thcir lavor, thcn his thought is lrcc,
howcvcr odd his conclusions may sccm.
Frccdom lrom thc tyranny ol passion is as csscntial as lrccdom
lrom thc inucncc ol tradition. Tc lunatic who thinks hc is God or
thc govcrnor ol thc 8ank ol ngland is not a lrcc thinkcr, bccausc
hc has allowcd thc passion ol mcgalomania to gct thc bcttcr ol his
+
rcason. Tc jcalous husband, who suspccts his wilc ol indclity on
inadcquatc grounds, and thc complaccnt optimist, who rcluscs to
suspcct hcr whcn thc cvidcncc is ovcrwhclming, arc alikc pcrmitting
passion to cnslavc thcir thought, in ncithcr ol thcm is thought lrcc.
Tc lrccdom that thc lrccthinkcr sccks is not thc absolutc lrcc
dom ol anarchy, it is lrccdom within thc intcllcctual law. Hc will not
bow to thc authority ol othcrs, and hc will not bow to his own dcsircs,
but hc will submit to cvidcncc. Provc to him that hc is mistakcn,
and hc will changc his opinion, supply him with a ncw lact, and hc
will il ncccssary abandon cvcn his most chcrishcd thcorics. Tis is
not to him a slavcry, sincc his dcsirc is to know, not to indulgc in
prctty lancics. Tc dcsirc lor knowlcdgc has an clcmcnt ol humility
towards lacts, in opinion, it submits to thc univcrsc. 8ut towards
mankind it is not humblc, it will not acccpt as gcnuinc knowlcdgc
thc countcrlcit coin that is too oltcn ocrcd with all thc apparatus
ol authority. Tc lrcc thinkcr knows that to control his cnvironmcnt
hc must undcrstand !t, and that thc illusion ol powcr to bc dcrivcd
lrom myths is no bcttcr that that ol a boastlul drunkard. Hc nccds.
towards his lcllow mcn, indcpcndcncc, towards his own prcjudiccs,
a dicult sclldisciplinc, and towards thc world that hc wishcs to un
dcrstand a clcar untroublcd outlook which cndcavors to scc without
distortion.
!s thc lrcc thinkcr, as wc havc bccn dcscribing him, a dcsirablc
mcmbcr ol socicty, or is hc a mcnacc to all that wc ought to hold
sacrcd: !n almost all timcs and placcs, hc has bccn hcld to bc a
mcnacc, and hc is still hcld to bc so, in varying dcgrccs, in almost
cvcry country. !n Gcrmany hc is scnt to a conccntration camp, in
Russia to a Labor Colony in thc Arctic, in Japan hc is imprisoncd
lor dangcrous thoughts, in thc Unitcd Statcs, though not subjcct
to lcgal pcnaltics, hc is dcbarrcd lrom tcaching in thc grcat majority
:
ol schools and univcrsitics, and has no chancc ol a political carccr.
Troughout a pcriod ol about +,:oo ycars, cvcry Christian country
in uropc condcmncd lrcc thinkcrs to bc burnt at thc stakc. !n
Mohammcdan countrics, though oltcn protcctcd by monarchs, thcy
wcrc subjccts ol abhorrcncc to thc mob cvcn in thc grcatcst pcriods
ol Arabic and Moorish culturc. A hostility so widcsprcad and so
ncarly univcrsal must havc dccp roots, partly in human naturc, partly
in thc statccralt ol govcrning cliqucs, in cithcr casc, thc soil in which
thcy ourish is lcar.
Lct us considcr somc ol thc argumcnts against lrcc thought that
arc uscd by thosc who arc not contcnt with a mcrc appcal to prcjudicc.
Tcrc is rst thc appcal to modcsty, which is uscd cspccially by thc
old in dcaling with rcbcllious youth. Visc mcn throughout thc agcs,
it is said, havc all bccn agrccd in upholding ccrtain grcat truths, and
who arc you to sct yourscll up against thcir unanimous tcstimony:
!l you arc prcparcd to rcjcct St. Paul and St. Augustinc will you bc
cqually contcmptuous ol Plato and Aristotlc: r, il you dcspisc all
thc ancicnts, what about cscartcs and Spinoza, Kant and Hcgcl:
Vcrc thcy not grcat intcllccts, who probcd mattcrs morc dccply than
you can hopc to do: And is not thc pastor ol your parcnts church
a virtuous and lcarncd man, who has a dcgrcc in thcology, and cvcn
spcnt somc months in thc study ol Hcbrcw: Havc you lorgottcn
what 8acon, that good and grcat man, said about a little knowlcdgc
inclining to athcism: o you prctcnd that thcrc arc no mystcrics
bclorc which thc human intcllcct is dumb: Pridc ol intcllcct is a sin,
and you commit it whcn you sct up your own judgmcnt against that
ol all thc wiscst mcn ol many ccnturics.
Tis argumcnt, cxprcsscd in Latinwhich is hcld to makc any
nonscnsc rcspcctablchas bccn crcctcd by thc Catholic Church into
a rst principlc: that wc cannot crr in bclicving what has bccn bc

licvcd always, cvcrywhcrc, and by cvcrybody. Tosc who usc this

argumcnt convcnicntly lorgct how many oncc univcrsal bclicls arc
now discardcd. !t was hcld that thcrc could not bc mcn at thc an
tipodcs, bccausc thcy would lall o, or at lcast grow dizzy lrom
standing upsidc down. vcrybody bclicvcd that thc sun gocs round
thc carth, that thcrc arc unicorns, and that toads arc poisonous. Until
thc +6th Ccntury, no onc qucstioncd thc ccacy ol witchcralt, ol
thosc who rst doubtcd thc truth ol this supcrstition, not a lcw wcrc
burnt at thc stakc. Vho now acccpts thc doctrinc, oncc almost uni
vcrsal throughout Christcndom, that inlants who dic without bcing
baptizcd will spcnd ctcrnity in hcll bccausc Adam atc an applc: Yct
all thcsc now obsolctc doctrincs could lormcrly havc bccn uphcld by
thc appcal to thc wisdom ol thc agcs.
Tc appcal to authority is lallacious, but cvcn so !t is qucstionablc
whcthcr, il admittcd, it would work morc in lavor ol Christianity than
against it. ! havc spcnt most ol my lilc in thc socicty ol authors and
mcn ol scicncc, among thcm, lrcc thought is takcn lor grantcd, and
thc lcw cxccptions arc notcd as lrcaks. !t is truc that most ol thcm
havc too much worldly wisdom to allow thcir opinions to bccomc
known to thc orthodox, lor cvcn now a known lrccthinkcr sucrs
various disabilitics, and has much morc diculty in making a living
than a man who is rcputcd to acccpt thc tcachings ol somc Church.
!t is only by imposing this somcwhat imsy hypocrisy that bclicvcrs
arc still ablc to dcccivc thc young by appcaling to authority.
Tc study ol anthropology is usclul in this rcspcct. Savagcs at a
ccrtain stagc ol dcvclopmcnt arc lound to havc vcry similar bclicls in
all parts ol thc world, and to thc modcrn mind thcsc bclicls arc almost
all absurd. 8ut il mankind continucs to advancc, wc shall, :o,ooo
ycars hcncc, appcar to our succcssors scarccly distinguishablc lrom
thc savagcs to whom wc lccl oursclvcs so supcrior. !t is customary to

datc anthropological cpochs by thc matcrials cmploycdthc stonc

agc, thc bronzc agc, thc iron agc. 8ut onc might cqually dcscribc
a culturc by its prcvalcnt bclicls: thc cannibal culturc, thc animal
sacricc culturc, thc transubstantiation culturc, and so on into thc
luturc. l a scc our bclicls as onc stagc in this dcvclopmcnt is wholc
somc. !t shows that thcrc is nothing which has bccn bclicvcd always,
cvcrywhcrc, and by cvcrybody, and that whatcvcr has bccn bclicvcd
by cvcrybody in a ccrtain stagc ol culturc has sccmcd nonscnsc to
cvcrybody in thc ncxt stagc.
Tc common body ol wisdom to which thc convcntional and or
thodox likc to appcal is a myth: thcrc is only thc wisdom ol onc timc
and placc. !n cvcry agc and in cvcry placc, il you wish to bc thought
wcll ol by inucntial citizcns you must at lcast sccm to sharc thcir
prcjudiccs, and you must closc your mind to thc lact that inucntial
citizcns in othcr timcs and placcs havc quitc dicrcnt prcjudiccs. !l,
on thc othcr hand, you wish to acquirc knowlcdgc, you must ignorc
thc inucntial citizcns, and rcly upon your judgmcnt, cvcn whcn you
acccpt thc authority ol thosc whom your own judgmcnt pronounccs
worthy ol rcspcct. Tis dcgrcc ol rcliancc upon yourscll is thc rst
stcp towards lrccdom ol thought. Not that you nccd think yourscll
inlalliblc, but that you must lcarn to think cvcryonc lalliblc, and to
contcnt yourscll with such grcatcr or lcss probability as thc cvidcncc
may sccm to you to warrant. Tis rcnunciation ol absolutc ccrtainty is,
to somc minds, thc most dicult stcp towards intcllcctual lrccdom.
l all thc argumcnts dcsigncd to showthat lrcc thought is wickcd,
thc onc most oltcn uscd is that without rcligion pcoplc would not
bc virtuous. Tcir virtuc. wc arc told, will lail lor two rcasons, rst,
that thcy will no longcr lcar pcrsonal punishmcnt, and sccond, that
thcy will no longcr know what is virtuc and what is sin. !n using this
argumcnt, orthodox Catholics havc in somc ways a logical advantagc

ovcr Protcstants. Lct us scc how thc argumcnt looks lrom a Catholic
point ol vicw.
Tc thcology ol sin has always bccn somcwhat intricatc, sincc it
has had to lacc thc lundamcntal qucstion: why did God pcrmit sin:
8t. Augustinc hcld that. lrom thc momcnt whcn Adam atc thc applc,
mcn havc not had lrcc will: thcy could not, by thcir own corts,
abstain lrom sin. Sincc sin dcscrvcs punishmcnt, God would havc
bccn cntircly just il Hc had condcmncd thc wholc human racc to hcll.
8ut mcrcy is also a virtuc, and in ordcr to cxcrcisc this virtuc Hc had
to scnd anothcr portion ol thc human racc to hcavcn. Nothing but
purc capricc, St. Augustinc maintaincd. dctcrmincd His choicc ol
thc clcct and thc rcprobatc. 8ut on thc clcct. whcn Hc had choscn
thcm, Hc bcstowcd gracc. so that thcy wcrc ablc, within limits, to
abstain lrom sin. Tcy wcrc virtuous bccausc thcy wcrc savcd, not
savcd bccausc thcy wcrc virtuous. For somc obscurc rcason. gracc
was ncvcr bcstowcd on thc unbaptizcd.
A ccrtain kindly Vclshman namcd Morgan, who translatcd his
namc !nto Pclagius, was a contcmporary ol St. Augustinc, and com
batcd his doctrinc as too scvcrc. Pclagius hcld that mcn still havc lrcc
will, in spitc ol Adams sin. Hc thought it cvcn possiblc that a human
bcing might bc cntircly without sin. Hc thought that thc wickcd arc
damncd bccausc thcy sin, whcrcas st. Augustinc thought that thcy
sin bccausc thcy arc damncd. Pclagius hcld that cach man had thc
powcr to livc so virtuously as to dcscrvc hcavcn, and that his usc ol his
own lrcc will dctcrmincd thc issuc bctwccn salvation and damnation.
St. Augustincs authority sccurcd thc condcmnation ol this doctrinc,
which rcmaincd hcrctical until thc Rclormation. 8ut at thc Rclorma
tion Luthcr and Calvin cspouscd thc thcory ol prcdcstination with
such ardor that thc Catholic Church, without lormal changc, turncd
incrcasingly towards thc doctrinc ol Pclagius. Tis doctrinc is now
6
hcld, in practicc il not in thcory, not only by thc Catholic Church,
but also by thc grcat majority ol thc Protcstants. !t has, howcvcr,
bccn still lurthcr soltcncd by thc bclicl that lcwcr pcoplc go to hcll
than was lormcrly thought. !ndccd, among Protcstants, a complctc
rcjcction ol hcll has bccomc vcry common.
A bclicl in cithcr hcll ol purgatory ought, onc would supposc,
to havc a powcrlul inucncc in promoting whatcvcr thc thcologians
considcr to bc virtuc. !l you acccpt St. Augustincs doctrinc, you will
hold that, although it is not virtuc that causcs you to go to hcavcn,
virtuc is a mark ol thc clcct, il you livc a sinlul lilc, you will bc lorccd
to concludc that you arc among thc rcprobatc. You will thcrclorc livc
virtuously in ordcr to hopc that you will go to hcavcn. !l you acccpt
thc morc usual vicw that you will bc punishcd hcrcaltcr lor your sins,
cithcr by spcnding ctcrnity in hcll or by a longcr or shortcr pcriod ol
purgatorial rcs, you will, il you arc prudcnt, considcr that, on thc
balancc, thc virtuous cnjoy morc plcasurc than thc wickcd, and that
thcrclorc, as a rational hcdonist, you had bcttcr abstain lrom sin. !l,
on thc othcr hand, you do not bclicvc in thc lilc hcrcaltcr, you will
sin whcncvcr no carthly pcnalty is to bc lcarcdso at lcast orthodox
thcologians sccm to think. Vhcthcr lrom introspcction or lor somc
othcr rcason, thcy sccm to bc all agrccd that disinterested virtuc is
impossiblc.
Howcvcr that may bc, thc vicws ol thc carly Church on sin
wcrc lound to bc too scvcrc lor ordinary human naturc, and wcrc
soltcncd in various ways which, incidcntally, incrcascd thc powcr ol
thc pricsthood. Tc sacramcnt ol absolution sccurcs sinncrs against
thc cxtrcmc pcnalty ol damnation, you may commit all thc sins you
havc a mind to, providcd you rcpcnt on your dcathbcd and rcccivc
cxtrcmc unction. Truc, you may sucr lor a whilc in purgatory, but
your sojourn thcrc can bc shortcncd il masscs arc said lor your soul,

and pricsts will say masscs lor you il you lcavc thcm moncy lor thc
purposc. Tus thc powcr ol wcalth cxtcnds bcyond thc gravc, and
bribcry is ccctivc cvcn in hcavcn. Tis comlortablc doctrinc lclt thc
rich and powcrlul lrcc to indulgc thcir passions as thcy saw t. !n
thc agcs ol laith, murdcr and rapc wcrc lar commoncr than thcy havc
sincc bccomc. Tc supposcd ccacy ol orthodox bclicl in curbing sin
is not bornc out by history. Not only havc bclicvcrs bccn pronc to sin,
but unbclicvcrs havc oltcn bccn cxccptionally virtuous, it would bc
dicult to point to any sct ol mcn morc impcccablc than thc carncst
lrcc thinkcrs ol thc +th Ccntury.
8ut, thc champion ol orthodoxy will objcct, whcn lrccthinkcrs
arc virtuous, it is bccausc thcy livc in a Christian community and
havc imbibcd its cthic in youth, without this inucncc, thcy would
qucstion thc moral law and scc no rcason to abstain lrom any inlamy.
Tc sins ol thc Nazis and thc 8olshcviks arc pointcd out as thc
lruits ol lrcc thought. 8ut thcy arc not lrccthinkcrs according to our
dcnition: thcy arc lanatical adhcrcnts ol absurd crccds, and thcir
crimcs spring lromthcir lanaticism. Tcy arc, in lact, thc samc crimcs
as thosc committcd by mcn likc Charlcs \ or Philip !!, who wcrc
champions ol thc laith. Charlcs \, altcr spcnding thc day conqucring
a Protcstant city, lclt that hc had carncd a littlc rclaxation, hc scnt his
scrvants out to nd a virgin, and thcy lound onc ol +. Prcsumably
shc got syphilis, but thc mpcror got absolution. Tis is thc systcm
which is supposcd to prcscrvc mcn lrom sin.
n thc othcr hand, many who arc now univcrsally acknowlcdgcd
to havc bccn quitc cxccptionally virtuous incurrcd obloquy, il not
worsc, lor thcir opposition to thc orthodoxy ol thcir day. Socratcs,
on thc ground that hc was guilty ol impicty, was condcmncd to
drink thc hcmlock. Giordano 8runo was burnt by thc !nquisition
and Scrvctus was burnt by Calvin, both bccausc, though mcn ol thc
8
highcst moral cxccllcncc, thcy had lallcn into hcrcsy. Spinoza, onc
ol thc noblcst mcn known to history, was cxcommunicatcd by thc
Jcws and cxccratcd by thc Christians, lor a hundrcd ycars altcr his
dcath, hardly anyonc darcd to say a good word lor him. Tc nglish
and Amcrican lrccthinkcrs ol thc +8th and carly +th ccnturics wcrc,
lor thc most part, mcn ol quitc cxccptional moral cxccllcncc, in
somc cascs, such as thc Founding Fathcrs, this is so cvidcnt that thc
orthodox havc bccn drivcn to conccal thc lact that mcn so univcrsally
admircd had shocking opinions. !n our day lrcc thought still lcads
mcn into troublc, but lcss lor attacks on dogma than lor criticism ol
thc supcrstitious parts ol rcligious cthics.
Tcrc arc, it is truc, somc actions labcllcd sin which arc likcly
to bc promotcd by lrcc thought. A Jcw, whcn hc ccascs to bc ortho
dox, may cat pork, a Hindu may commit thc ocnsc ol cating bccl.
Tc Grcck rthodox Church considcrs it sin lor godparcnts ol thc
samc child to marry, ! will not dcny that lrcc thought may cncour
agc this cnormity. Protcstants condcmn amuscmcnts on Sunday, and
Catholics condcmn birth control, in thcsc rcspccts, also, lrcc thought
may bc inimical to what bigots choosc to call virtuc. Moral codcs
which arc irrational, and havc no basis cxccpt in supcrstition, cannot
long survivc thc habit ol disintcrcstcd thinking. 8ut il a moral codc
sccms to promotc human wcllbcing in this tcrrcstrial cxistcncc, it
has no nccd ol supcrnatural sanctions. Kindlincss and intclligcncc
arc thc chicl sourccs ol usclul bchavior, and ncithcr is promotcd by
causing pcoplc to bclicvc, against all rcason, in a capricious and vin
dictivc dcity who practiccs a dcgrcc ol cruclty which, in thc strictcst
mathcmatic scnsc, surpasscs innitcly that ol thc worst human bcings
who havc cvcr cxistcd. Modcrn libcral Christians may protcst that
this is not thc sort ol God in whom thcy bclicvc, but thcy should
rcalizc that only thc tcachings ol pcrsccutcd lrccthinkcrs havc causcd

this moral advancc in thcir bclicls.

! comc now to anothcr class ol argumcnts against lrcc thought,
namcly thosc which may bc callcd political. !n lormcr timcs, thcsc
argumcnts took a vcry crudc lorm: it is all vcry wcll (it was said)
lor thc rich and powcrlul to bc skcptics, but thc poor nccd somc
thcological bclicl to makc thcm contcntcd with thcir lot. !l thcy
can bc induccd to think that this lilc ol tribulation is only a bricl
prcludc to ctcrnal bliss, and that rcwards in hcavcn arc much morc
likcly to go to thc poor than to thc rich, thcy will bc lcss inclincd to
listcn to subvcrsivc propaganda, particularly il hcavcn is only to bc
thc rcward ol thc submissivc. Tis point ol vicw cxistcd in antiquity
and throughout thc Middlc Agcs, but it was cspccially prcvalcnt in
thc carly +th Ccntury, whcn thc prcaching ol Mcthodism induccd
acquicsccncc among thc victims ol thc atrocious industrial systcm
ol that pcriod. Tis lrank dclcnsc ol carthly injusticc as a prclacc to
cclcstial justicc has now bccn prctty gcncrally abandoncd, but not,
lor thc most part, through thc initiativc ol champions ol rcligion.
!t was mainly mcn likc Tom Painc, Robcrt wcn, and Karl Marx,
lrccthinkcrs all, who shamcd thc orthodox rich out ol this complaccnt
attcmpt to intcrprct God as thc Suprcmc Capitalist.
Tcrc is, howcvcr, a gcncralizcd lorm ol thc samc argumcnt,
which dcscrvcs morc rcspcct, and calls lor scrious discussion. !n
this lorm, thc argumcnt maintains that social cohcsion, without
which no community can survivc, is only rcndcrcd possiblc by somc
unilying crccd or moral codc, and that no such crccd or codc can long
survivc thc corrosivc ccct ol skcptical criticism. Tcrc havc bccn
pcriodsso it is allcgcdwhcn dcnial ol traditional orthodoxics
causcd political disastcr, ol thcsc thc most notablc arc thc grcat agc
ol Grcccc and thc cpoch ol thc !talian Rcnaissancc. !t is customary
among thc ignorant to bring up thc lall ol Romc in this conncction,
+o
and to link it with thc wickcdncss ol Ncro. 8ut as thc lall ol Romc
did not occur until oo ycars altcr thc timc ol Ncro, and as mcanwhilc
thc Romans had undcrgonc a grcat moral purication, culminating
in thc adoption ol Christianity, this cxamplc is ill choscn. Tc othcr
two dcscrvc morc scrious discussion.
Tc Grcck citics lost thcir indcpcndcncc, rst to thc Maccdonians,
and thcn, morc complctcly, to thc Romans, and this loss occurrcd at a
timc whcn thc ancicnt pictics had bccn dissolvcd by lrcc inquiry. 8ut
thcrc is no rcason to conncct thcir lall with thcir skcpticism. Tcy
lcll bccausc thcy could not unitc, and thcir lailurc to unitc was duc
to ordinary political causcs, such as, in our own day, prcvcntcd thc
smallcr ncutrals lrom uniting against Hitlcr. No intcnsity ol rcligious
bclicl could havc savcd thcm, only a rarc dcgrcc ol political sagacity
would havc bccn ol any scrvicc. Carthagc lcll cqually, though at
thc crisis thc Carthaginians sacriccd thcir childrcn to Moloch as
rcligiously as any champion ol rcligion could wish.
Much thc samc considcrations apply to !taly in thc rcnaissancc.
Francc and Spain wcrc Grcat Powcrs, to which thc small !talian
Statcs could ocr no ccctivc opposition. !n thc lacc ol traditional
cnmitics unity was dicult, as it always is in such circumstanccs, its
most lorcclul advocatc was thc wickcd Machiavclli, and, as hc points
out, its most powcrlul opponcnt was thc Popc. No scrious historical
studcnt can maintain that thc cnslavcmcnt ol !taly was duc to lack
ol rcligion.
Vc may howcvcr conccdc onc thing to thosc who urgc that
rcligion is socially ncccssary. Vhcrc thc Church has bccn a vcry
powcrlul organization, and has playcd a grcat part in rcgulating mcns
livcs, its suddcn dissolution may lcavc thcm without thc accustomcd
cxtcrnal guidancc, and rcndcr socicty somcwhat chaotic until ncw
organizations grow up. 8ut in this rcspcct thc Church is no dicrcnt
++
lrom any othcr important organization. Social cohcsion is important,
and thc Church has bccn onc ol thc ways ol sccuring it, but thcrc
arc innumcrablc othcr ways which do not dcmand so high a pricc in
mcntal bondagc.
Somc mcn arguc that thc qucstion whcthcr rcligious dogmas arc
truc or lalsc is unimportant, thc important thing, thcy say, is that
thcsc bclicls arc comlorting. How could wc lacc lilc, thcy ask, il
this world wcrc all, and il wc had no assurancc that its apparcnt cvil
scrvcs somc grcat purposc: Vill not bclicl in immortality promotc
couragc in thc lacc ol dcath: Vill not thc bclicl that thc coursc ol
history is ordaincd by an allwisc bcncccnt Providcncc hclp us to
stand rm in timcs whcn cvil appcars to bc triumphant: Vhy rob
oursclvcs or othcrs ol this sourcc ol happincss by listcning to thc
dubious argumcnts ol thosc who rclusc to bclicvc in anything that
cannot bc dcmonstratcd by thc cold intcllcct: Has not thc hcart its
rights: Vhy should it submit to thc hcad: As thc poct Tcnnyson
cxclaims in rcbutting thc contcntions ol skcptics:
Likc a man in wrath thc hcart
Stood up and answcrcd: ! havc lclt.
Tcrc is to my mind somcthing pusillanimous and snivcling about
this point ol vicw, which makcs mc scarccly ablc to considcr it with
paticncc. To rclusc to lacc lacts mcrcly bccausc thcy arc unplcasant
is considcrcd thc mark ol a wcak charactcr, cxccpt in thc sphcrc ol
rcligion. ! do not scc how it can bc ignoblc to yicld to thc tyranny ol
lcar in all ordinary tcrrcstrial mattcrs, but noblc and virtuous to do
cxactly thc samc thing whcn God and thc luturc lilc arc conccrncd.
8ut, thc dclcndcrs ol orthodoxy may arguc, you do not know that
rcligious bclicls arc untruc. Vhcrc all is doubtlul, why not acccpt thc
morc chccrlul altcrnativc: Tis is thc argumcnt ol Villiam Jamcss
+:
Vill to 8clicvc. Tc duty ol vcracity, hc says, has two parts: rst,
to bclicvc what is truc, sccond, to disbclicvc what is lalsc. To thcsc
two parts hc attachcs cqual authority. Tc skcptic, who suspcnds
judgmcnt in thc abscncc ol adcquatc cvidcncc, is ccrtainly lailing
to bclicvc what is truc, whcrcas, il hc adoptcd cithcr altcrnativc, hc
might bc succccding in bclicving what is truc. n this ground, in
thc namc ol vcracity, Villiam Jamcs condcmns thc skcptic.
His argumcnt, howcvcr, is shockingly sophistical. Tc virtuc ol
vcracity docs not consist in bclicving all sorts ol things at a vcnturc,
on thc o chancc that thcy may happcn to bc truc. No onc would lor
a momcnt takc this point ol vicw cxccpt as rcgards rcligion. Supposc
! gct into convcrsation with a strangcr, am ! to bclicvc that his namc
is Vilkinson on thc ground that, il it is, ! shall bc bclicving truly,
whcrcas il ! admit that ! do not yct know his namc ! lorlcit thc
chancc ol a truc bclicl: You will say that thcrc arc known to bc many
surnamcs, and thcrclorc cach is improbablc. 8ut thcrc arc also many
rcligions. !l ! am to bclicvc at a vcnturc, shall ! bclicvc what ! am
told by thc 8uddhists, or thc Hindus, or thc Christians: And il !
choosc thc Christians, shall ! prclcr thc Catholics, or thc Luthcrans,
or thc Calvinists, or thc Mugglctonians, or thc Particular 8aptists:
n Villiam Jamcs principlc ! ought to bclicvc thcm all, so as to
havc thc grcatcst possiblc chancc ol bclicving somcthing truc.
Tc inconclusivc charactcr ol thc argumcnts against this or that
thcological dogma, cvcn whcn lully admittcd, docs not justily bclicl
in anyonc ol thc mutually inconsistcnt systcms that human lantasy
has crcatcd. ! cannot provc that thc Hindus arc mistakcn in attribut
ing a pcculiar sacrcdncss to thc cow, or that thc Mohammcdans arc
wrong in thinking that only thc lollowcrs ol thc Prophct will cnjoy
thc dclights ol paradisc. Pcrhaps Mr. Mugglcton was as grcat a man
as thc Mugglctonians contcnd, pcrhaps thc Scvcnth ay Advcntists
+
arc right in thinking that it is on Saturdays that God wants us to do
no work. 8ut il wc arc going to adopt all thcsc bclicls, as Villiam
Jamcss principlcs would lcad us to do, wc shall nd lilc somcwhat
dicult. Vc must not cat bccl bccausc thc Hindus may bc right, or
pork bccausc thc Jcws may bc right, or bcans bccausc Pythagoras
lorbad thcm. Vc must not work on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays,
to obcy Mohammcdan, Jcwish and Christian prcccpts, thc rcmaining
days will mostly bc sacrcd days in somc rcligion. Pcrhaps in thc cnd a
gcncral skcpticism may sccm lcss inconvcnicnt than thc consolations
ol all thc rcligions at oncc. 8ut how is a lairmindcd man to choosc
among thcm:
Tc virtuc ol vcracity, as ! conccivc it, consists in giving to cvcry
suggcstcd bclicl thc dcgrcc ol crcdcncc that thc cvidcncc warrants.
Vc givc wholchcartcd crcdcncc to our pcrccptions, almost compctc
crcdcncc to what is wcllcstablishcd in scicncc, such as prcdictions
ol cclipscs, but much lcss to what is still somcwhat tcntativc, such
as thc wcathcr lorccast. Vc do not doubt that thcrc was a lamous
man callcd Julius Cacsar, but about Zoroastcr wc arc not so surc.
\cracity docs not consist simply !n bclicving or disbclicving, but also
in suspcnding judgmcnt, and in thinking somc things probablc and
othcrs improbablc.
8ut, says Villiam Jamcs, you must, in any doubtlul situation, act
cithcr on bclicl or disbclicl, and whichcvcr you act upon thc othcr
altcrnativc is practically rcjcctcd. Tis is an unduc simplication.
Many hypothcscs arc worth acting upon in ccrtain ways, but not
in othcrs. !l ! am hcalthy, ! may act upon thc hypothcsis that thc
wcathcr is going to bc nc, but il ! havc a pcculiar scnsibility to chills
! may rcquirc vcry strong cvidcncc bclorc it bccomcs wisc to adopt
this hypothcsis. ! may act upon thc hypothcsis that only thc good
can go to hcavcn to thc cxtcnt ol bcing good myscll, without bcing
+
justicd in acting on it to thc cxtcnt ol burning thosc whom ! think
not good.
Vc arc all obligcd constantly to act upon doubtlul hypothcscs,
but whcn wc do so wc ought to takc carc that thc rcsults will not bc
vcry disastrous il thc hypothcscs arc lalsc. And whcn wc act upon
a doubtlul hypothcsis, wc ought not to pcrsuadc oursclvcs that it is
ccrtain, lor thcn wc closc our minds against ncw cvidcncc, and also
vcnturc on actions (such as pcrsccution) which arc vcry undcsirablc
il thc hypothcsis is lalsc. And lor this rcason praisc and blamc ought
not to bc attachcd to bclicls or disbclicls, but only to rational or
irrational ways ol holding thcm.
Tc importancc ol lrcc thought is thc samc thing as thc impor
tancc ol vcracity. \cracity docs not ncccssarily consist in bclicving
what is in lact truc, bccausc somctimcs thc availablc cvidcncc may
point to a wrong conclusion. ccasions may arisc whcn thc most con
scicntious jury will condcmn a man who is in lact innoccnt, bccausc
unlortunatc circumstanccs havc madc him sccm guilty. Tc bc always
right is not possiblc lor human bcings, but it is possiblc always to try
to bc right. \cracity consists in trying to bc right in mattcrs ol bclicl,
and also in doing what is possiblc to insurc that othcrs arc right.
Vhy should vcracity bc rcgardcd as important: Tc rcasons arc
partly pcrsonal, partly social. Lct us bcgin with thc social rcasons.
vcry powcrlul individual or group dcpcnds upon thc cxistcncc
ol ccrtain bclicls in othcrs. Tc alai Lama is powcrlul in Tibct,
thc Caliph uscd to bc powcrlul in thc Muslim world, thc Popc is
powcrlul among Catholics, and thc powcr ol thcsc mcn dcpcnds upon
thc bclicl ol thcir lollowcrs that thcy havc somc pcculiar holincss.
Tc alai Lama makcs (or madc) largc sums ol moncy by sclling
pills madc out ol his cxcrcmcnt. Vhat thc Caliph uscd to makc
out ol bcing holy is lamiliar to cvcry rcadcr ol thc Arabian Nights.
+
Tc Popc has bccn shorn ol somc ol his glory by thc wickcdncss
ol Protcstants and lrccthinkcrs, but in thc grcat days ol thc !talian
rcnaissancc hc cnjoycd immcnsc splcndor. !s it to bc supposcd that
mcn in such a position will cncouragc a rational cxamination ol thcir
claims: Tc alai Lama, likc thc vcndors ol patcnt mcdicincs among
oursclvcs. would obviously stick at nothing to prcvcnt a scicntic
invcstigation ol thc ccacy ol various pills, or at any ratc to prcvcnt
its rcsults lrom bccoming known. Hc may himscll, likc somc ol thc
Rcnaissancc Popcs, bc complctcly skcptical, but hc will not wish his
disciplcs to rcscmblc him in this rcspcct.
Vhcrcvcr thcrc is powcr, thcrc is a tcmptation to cncouragc
irrational crcdulity in thosc who arc subjcct to thc powcr in qucstion.
Kings havc bccn supposcd to bc sacrcd bcings, thc Mikado is still a
divinity dcsccndcd lrom thc sungoddcss. Somctimcs thc busincss ol
sacrcdncss is ovcrdonc. Tc king ol ahomcy had such majcsty that
whcncvcr hc lookcd towards any part ol his dominions tcmpcsts arosc
in that part, hc thcrclorc had to look always at thc ground, which
madc him casy to assassinatc. 8ut whcn thc king as an individual
is hampcrcd in this way, ccrtain pcoplc in his cntouragc can usc his
magical powcrs lor thcir own cnds, so that thcrc is no gain to thc
public.
Vhcn supcrstition is nccdcd to promotc tyranny, lrcc thought
is likcly to causc rcvolution. 8ut whcn thc population has bccn
accustomcd to irrational rcvcrcncc, it is likcly to translcr its rcvcrcncc
to thc lcadcr ol a succcsslul rcvolution. !kons arc still habitual in
Russia, but ol Lcnin or Stalin instcad ol ur Lady. Tc chicl gain
in such a casc is that thc ncw supcrstition is not likcly to havc such a
rm hold as thc old onc had, Stalinworship could bc upsct by a lcss
tcrric uphcaval than thc rcvolution ol ++.
!l a population is to cscapc tyranny, it must havc a lrccthinking
+6
attitudc towards its govcrnmcnt and thc thcorics upon which its gov
crnmcnt is bascd, that is to say, it must dcmand that thc govcrnmcnt
shall act in thc gcncral intcrcst, and must not bc dcccivcd by a supcr
stitious thcology into thc bclicl that what is in lact only thc intcrcst
ol thc govcrning cliquc is idcntical with thc gcncral intcrcst. For
obcdicncc to a tolcrablc govcrnmcnt thcrc arc abundant rational mo
tivcs, but whcn obcdicncc is givcn lor irrational rcasons thc rcsulting
lavishncss cncouragcs thc govcrnmcnt to bccomc tyrannical.
vcr sincc thc Rclormation, thc Statc has incrcasingly rcplaccd
thc Church as thc objcct ol supcrstitious rcvcrcncc. At rst, thc Statc
was cmbodicd in thc King: Hcnry \!!! in ngland and Louis X!\ in
Francc wcrc ablc to do abominablc things bccausc ol thc divinity that
doth hcdgc a king. 8ut in Gcrmany and Russia it has bccn lound
possiblc, by mcans ol a lanatical crccd, to gcncratc a similar lccling ol
awc towards a rcvolutionary lcadcr, and in ordcr to achicvc this cnd
lrcc thought has bccn supprcsscd morc vigorously than at any timc
sincc thc +th Ccntury. nly a gcncral growth ol lrcc thought can,
in thc long run, savc thcsc countrics lrom a scllimposcd dcspotism.
Tc usc ol control ovcr opinion to promotc thc powcr ol a dom
inant class is bcst shown in thc growth ol Catholic thcology. Tc
powcr ol thc pricsthood dcpcnds upon its ability to dccidc whcthcr
you shall go to hcavcn or to hcll, and, in thc lormcr cvcnt, how
long you shall spcnd in purgatory. Vhat must you do in ordcr to bc
among thc lortunatc: Must you lcad a virtuous lilc: Must you lovc
your ncighbor, as Christ ordaincd: r must you obcy thc still morc
dicult prcccpt to scll all you havc and givc to thc poor: No, you
nccd do nonc ol thcsc things. Gctting to hcavcn is a mattcr ol rcd
tapc, likc gctting to a lorcign country in war timc.
First, you must avoid hcrcsy, that is to say, you must bclicvc
cvcrything that thc Church tclls you to bclicvc. You nccd not know
+
what thc dogmas ol thc Church arc, bccausc that is dicult cxccpt
lor cducatcd thcologians, but you must hold no opinions contrary
to thcsc dogmas, and, il you cvcr lccl tcmptcd to do so, you must
abandon thc dangcrous opinions as soon as you arc ocially inlormcd
that thcy arc not orthodox. !n a word, on all thc most important
subjccts you must ncvcr think lor yourscll.
As rcgards conduct, you nccd not avoid sin, indccd, it is hcrctical
to supposc that you can. You arc surc to sin, but that nccd not troublc
you providcd you takc thc propcr stcps. Tcrc arc scvcn dcadly sins,
il you commit any ol thcsc, and dic bclorc taking thc propcr stcps,
you will go to hcll, but all can bc lorgivcn to thosc who go through
thc corrcct routinc. You must rst tcll somc pricst all about it. and
prolcss duc pcnitcncc. Hc can thcn absolvc you, but may imposc
a pcnancc as thc condition ol absolution. You arc now salc lrom
hcll, so lar as that particular sin is conccrncd, but to shortcn your
timc in purgatory thcrc arc various things that it is wisc to do, most
ol which incrcasc cithcr thc powcr or thc incomc ol thc pricsthood.
!l you havc cnough moncy, you can commit a grcat many sins and
ncvcrthclcss gct to hcavcn prctty soon. Tc morc sins you commit,
thc morc thc Church prots by thc stcps you havc to takc to mitigatc
thc punishmcnt. Tc systcm is convcnicnt both lor pricsts and lor
sinncrs, but it is prcpostcrous to prctcnd that it promotcs virtuc.
Vhat it docs promotc is mcntal docility and abjcct lcar.
! do not wish to suggcst that thcsc dclccts arc pcculiarly charactcr
istic ol thc Catholic Church. Tcy cxist cqually undcr thc tyranny ol
thc Nazi party and thc Communist party. Tc sins to which thcsc par
tics objcct arc somcwhat dicrcnt lrom thosc to which thc Church
objccts: in particular, thcy arc lcss obscsscd by scx. And thc pun
ishmcnt ol sin, undcr thcir rcgimc, is in this world, not in thc ncxt.
8ut othcrwisc thcrc is much similarity, cxccpt lor thc dicrcnccs
+8
that must cxist bctwccn what is ncw and what is old and tricd and
cstablishcd. Vhat is in common is thc powcr ol onc group, bascd on
irrational bclicls. And thc ultimatc curc, in all thcsc lorms ol mcntal
tyranny, is lrccdom ol thought.
!t is odd that thc orthodox, whilc dccrying lrcc thought in thcir
own day, arc quitc willing to admit a host ol truths which would
ncvcr havc bccomc known but lor thc lrccthinkcrs ol carlicr agcs. !t
was lrccthinkcrs in carly Grcccc who pcrsuadcd thcir compatriots,
in spitc ol thc opposition ol thc pricsts ol clphi, to abandon thc
practicc ol human sacricc. Anaxagoras, who taught that thc sun
and moon arc not gods, only cscapcd dcath lor impicty by ight
lrom Athcns. Tosc who disbclicvcd in witchcralt wcrc told, quitc
truly, that to qucstion witchcralt is to qucstion thc 8iblc. Galilco,
lor holding that thc carth gocs round thc sun, was lorccd undcr
thrcat ol torturc to rccant, was kcpt in prison, and was ordcrcd to
rcpcat daily thc scvcn pcnitcntial psalms to show his contrition lor
having uscd his mind. arwin, lortunatcly lor himscll, livcd in an
agc whcn pcrsccution was in abcyancc, but hc was dcnounccd by
thc orthodox, and thcy would havc supprcsscd his tcaching il thcy
had had thc powcr. vcry intcllcctual advancc, and a grcat many
moral rclorms, havc had to ght lor \ictory against thc lorccs ol
obscurantism. Ncvcrthclcss, in what thc obscurantists still dclcnd,
thcy arc as obstinatc as thcy cvcr wcrc. Progrcss, pow as in thc past,
is only possiblc in thc tccth ol thcir bittcr hostility.
Tc pcrsonal and privatc rcasons in lavor ol vcracity in thinking
arc no lcss cogcnt than thc public rcasons. Vc all know thc kind ol
pcrson who cannot bcar any unpalatablc lact, and wc know that, to
thosc who livc with thcm, thcy appcar irritating and contcmptiblc. !n
Shakcspcarcs Antony and Clcopatra Clcopatra ordcrs thc mcsscn
gcr who brings ncws ol Antonys marriagc to ctavia to bc scourgcd.
+
Altcr this, pcoplc arc wary ol tclling hcr anything that may annoy hcr,
and, hugging hcr illusions, shc gocs straight to disastcr. !n rcgard
to mundanc aairs, thc capacity to assimilatc what is unplcasant is a
condition ol succcss, and lor this rcason, il lor no othcr, it is a mistakc
to wrap oncscll around with comlortablc lairytalcs.
8ut, it will bc said, bclicls about thc ncxt world arc in quitc
a dicrcnt catcgory. Howcvcr lalsc thcy may bc, thcy will not bc
rclutcd by any cxpcricncc during this lilc. vcn il thcrc is no such
placc as hcavcn, thc man who cxpccts to go thcrc will havc a happicr
lilc than thc man who rcgards dcath as annihilation. Vhat advantagc
is thcrc, thcn, in thinking truly about such a mattcr:
Now to bcgin with, vcracity consists, as wc havc alrcady said, not
in having truc bclicls, but in trying to havc thcm. Tc man who, altcr
a dispassionatc cxamination ol thc cvidcncc, has dccidcd that thcrc
is a luturc lilc, is not lacking in vcracity, this lack cxists only in thc
bclicvcr who rcluscs to cxaminc thc cvidcncc bccausc hc lcars that
it may provc inadcquatc. Tis man is likc onc who rcluscs to opcn a
lcttcr bccausc it may contain bad ncws. Vhcn a man allows onc kind
ol lcar to dominatc him, hc soon comcs to bc dominatcd by othcr
kinds also. Tc world in which wc livc is lull ol unplcasant things,
somc ol which arc prctty surc to happcn to oursclvcs. !l wc arc to
prcscrvc scllrcspcct, and to mcrit thc rcspcct ol othcrs, wc must lcarn
to cndurc such things, not only whcn thcy happcn, but in prospcct.
Tc man who lcars that thcrc is no cvidcncc lor immortality, but
ncvcrthclcss clings to thc bclicl by closing his mind, is no bcttcr than
a man who lcars hc has canccr, but rcluscs a mcdical cxamination
lcst his lcars should bc conrmcd. ach alikc is on a lcvcl with thc
soldicr who runs away in battlc.
nc ol thc worst aspccts ol orthodox Christianity !s that it sancti
cs lcar, both pcrsonal and impcrsonal. Fcar ol hcll, lcar ol cxtinction,
:o
lcar lcst thc univcrsc should bc purposclcss, arc rcgardcd as noblc
cmotions, and mcn who allow thcmsclvcs to bc dominatcd by such
lcars arc thought supcrior to mcn who lacc what is painlul without
inching. 8ut human naturc cannot bc so complctcly dcpartmcn
talizcd that lcar can bc cxaltcd in onc dircction without acquiring a
hold in othcr dircctions also. Tc man who thinks himscll virtuous
in lcaring an angry God will soon bcgin to scc virtuc in submission to
carthly tyrants. !n thc bcst charactcr thcrc is an clcmcnt ol pridcnot
thc sort ol pridc that dcspiscs othcrs, but thc sort that will not bc
dccctcd lrom what it thinks good by outsidc prcssurc. Tc man
who has this sort ol pridc will wish, as lar as may bc, to know thc
truth about mattcrs that conccrn him, and will lccl himscll a slavc il,
in his thought, hc yiclds to lcar. 8ut this kind ol pridc is condcmncd
by thc Church as a sin, and is callcd pridc ol intcllcct. For my part,
so lar lrom rcgarding it as a sin, ! hold is to bc onc ol thc grcatcst
and most dcsirablc ol virtucs.
8ut it is timc to tacklc thc morc spccic qucstions: !s thcrc
cvidcncc in lavor ol Christian dogmas, cithcr in thc old rigid lorms
or in thc vagucr lorms lavorcd by modcrnists: And, il thcrc is not
such cvidcncc, is thcrc ncvcrthclcss rcason to think that bclicl in
Christian dogmas docs good:
Tc old orthodoxy has now lallcn into almost univcrsal dislavor,
cvcn among Catholics. Catholics still bclicvc in hcll, but by mcans
ol thc doctrinc ol invinciblc !gnorancc thcy cscapc thc ncccssity ol
bclicving that thcir Protcstant lricnds will go thcrc. !ndccd thcrc
is hardly anybody thcy know to bc damncd, cxccpt Judas !scariot.
Ncvcrthclcss, thcy arc still, thcorctically, in lavor ol pcrsccution, ol
which thc justication was that hcrcsy lcads to damnation. !n this
as in various othcr rcspccts, Catholic cthics has not yct drawn all
thc inlcrcnccs that lollow lrom thc libcralizing ol Catholic thcology.
:+
Pcrhaps in timc thcsc inlcrcnccs will bc drawn. 8ut as in purcly thco
logical mattcrs, thc driving lorcc will havc to comc lrom lrccthinkcrs.
8ut lor thcir inucncc, Catholic thcology would still bc as rigid as
in thc middlc agcs.
! think wc may say that what is csscntial to Christianity as con
ccivcd by modcrn thcologians is bclicl in God and immortality, to
gcthcr with a moral codc which is morc traditional than that ol most
lrccthinkcrs.
Vhat rcasons arc thcrc lor bclicl in God: !n old days, thcrc wcrc
a varicty ol purcly intcllcctual argumcnts, which wcrc thought to
makc it irrational to doubt thc cxistcncc ol God. Tc chicl ol thcsc
was thc argumcnt ol thc First Causc: in tracing cvcnts backward lrom
cccts to causcs, wc must, it was thought, comc to an cnd somcwhcrc,
sincc an innitc scrics is impossiblc. Vhcrcvcr wc comc to an cnd,
wc havc rcachcd a Causc which is not an ccct, and this Causc is
God. Tis and othcr purcly intcllcctual argumcnts wcrc criticizcd by
lrccthinkcrs, and in thc cnd most thcologians camc to admit that thcy
arc invalid. Tc argumcnts upon which most modcrn thcologians
rcly arc lcss prccisc and morc conccrncd with moral issucs. !n thc
main, thcy rcsult lrom cxamination ol what is callcd thc rcligious
consciousncss or thc rcligious cxpcricncc. ! do not think thcy arc any
morc cogcnt than thc old argumcnts, but bccausc ol thcir vagucncss
thcy arc lcss susccptiblc to prccisc rclutations.
Vc arc told that wc havc a moral scnsc which must havc had
supcrnatural origin. Vc arc told also that ccrtain pcoplc havc rc
ligious cxpcricnccs in which thcy bccomc awarc ol God with thc
samc ccrtainty with which wc bccomc awarc ol tablcs and chairs. !t
is thought to bc irrational to qucstion this cvidcncc mcrcly on thc
ground that only ccrtain pcoplc havc thc mystical cxpcricnccs in qucs
tion. Vc acccpt a host ol things in scicncc on thc word ol ccrtain
::
skillcd obscrvcrs, why not acccpt things in rcligion on thc word ol
thc skillcd obscrvcrs in this cld:
To thc mystic, who is pcrsuadcd that hc himscll has sccn God,
it is usclcss to arguc about thc mattcr. !l hc has momcnts whcn hc
is amcnablc to rcason, onc may point out that innumcrablc pcoplc
havc sccn Satan, in whom most modcrn mystics do not bclicvc. Vc
may point out that Mr. SoandSo, who is a dcvotcc ol thc worship
ol 8acchus, has sccn pink rats. but has not bccn ablc to pcrsuadc
othcr zoologists ol thcir rcality. Vc may tracc thc history ol visions
and hallucinations, pointing out how thcy arc colorcd by thc prcvious
bclicls ol thc sccrs or lunatics conccrncd. St. Anthony in thc dcscrt
was constantly troublcd by apparitions ol nakcd ladics, arc wc to
inlcr that thc Koran is right in promising abundancc ol such sights
in Paradisc: Pcrish thc thought!
Such things, ! say, wc may point out, but probably in vain. A lady
ol my acquaintancc took to lasting, and rccommcndcd thc practicc
on thc ground that it gavc risc to visions. Ycs, ! said, il you drink
too much you scc snakcs, and il you cat too littlc you scc angcls.
8ut, alas! shc was only annoycd. Shc hcld, as many mystics do, that
a vision must bc vcridical il it is cdilying and rcsults lrom virtuous
living. Tis vicw is only justicd il wc alrcady know that thc world is
govcrncd by a bcncccnt Providcncc which rcwards thosc who obcy
!ts laws by allowing thcm glimpscs ol thc lclicity to comc. Vhat
il, as somc hcrctics havc thought, this world is thc cmpirc ol Satan,
who rcwards thc wickcd not only with richcs and powcr, but with
hiddcn magical lorc: !n that casc, thc visions ol thc wickcd will
dcscrvc morc crcdcncc than thosc ol thc good, and wc shall listcn
with morc rcspcct to thc rcvclations ol thc drunkard than to thosc ol
thc ascctic. 8clorc wc can dccidc, thcrclorc, what wcight to attach
to thc tcstimony ol thc mystics, wc must rst inquirc whcthcr thcrc
:
arc any grounds lor bclicving in a good God.
God, !n orthodox thcology, is thc omnipotcnt Crcator, who
madc thc world out ol nothing. Tcrc arc somc libcral thcologians
nowadays who dcny His omnipotcncc, ! shall considcr thcir vicw
prcscntly, but rst lct us cxaminc thc morc usual and corrcct opinion.
Tis vicw has bccn most clcarly and cxactly cxprcsscd by thc
philosophcr Lcibniz. According to him. God, bclorc crcating thc
world, survcycd all thc worlds that arc logically possiblc, and com
parcd thcm as thc amount ol good and cvil that thcy scvcrally con
taincd. 8cing bcncccnt, Hc dccidcd to crcatc that onc ol thc possi
blc worlds that containcd thc grcatcst cxccss ol good ovcr cvil. Tis
world happcncd to contain a good dcal ol cvil, but thc cvil was log
ically bound up with thc grcatcr good. !n particular, sin !s an cvil,
but lrcc will is a good. Not cvcn omnipotcncc can conlcr lrcc will
without thc possibility ol sin, but lrcc will is so grcat a good that God
dccidcd to crcatc a world containing both lrcc will and sin rathcr
than a world containing ncithcr. Hc did so, and Adam atc thc applc.
Hcncc all our sorrows.
Tis is a prctty lablc, and ! will not dcny that it is logically possiblc,
but that is thc utmost that ! will conccdc. !t is cxactly cqually possiblc
that thc world was crcatcd by a wholly malicious dcvil, who allowcd
a ccrtain amount ol good in ordcr to incrcasc thc sum ol cvil. Lct
us supposc his cthical valuations to bc cntircly orthodox, but his will
to bc towards what !s bad. Hc would agrcc with thc thcologians
!n thinking sin thc grcatcst ol cvils, and would pcrccivc that sin
is impossiblc without lrcc will. Hc would thcrclorc crcatc things
posscsscd ol lrcc will, in spitc ol thc lact that lrcc will madc virtuc
possiblc. Hc would bc consolcd, howcvcr, by thc lorcknowlcdgc that
virtuc would bc vcry rarc. And so this actual world, which hc crcatcd,
is thc worst ol all possiblc worlds, although it contains somc things
:
that arc good.
! am not advocating this lablc, any morc than Lcibnizs. 8oth
sccm to mc to bc cqually lantastic. Tc only dicrcncc bctwccn thcm
!. that onc is plcasant, thc othcr unplcasant, but this dicrcncc has
succd to makc Christians acccpt thc onc and rcjcct thc othcr. No
onc askcd: Vhy should thc truth bc plcasant: Vhat rcason havc
wc to think our wishcs a kcy to rcality: thc only rational answcr is:
Nonc whatcvcr.
Tc shilts to which thcologians havc bccn put to provc thc world
such as a good God could havc crcatcd arc somctimcs vcry curious. !n
+ thcrc was a grcat carthquakc in Lisbon, which shook \oltaircs
laith. 8ut Rousscau pointcd out that thc loss ol lilc was duc to
pcoplc living in high houscs, il thcy had run wild in thc woods, likc
thc noblc savagc, thcy would not havc sucrcd, thcy wcrc thcrclorc
justly punishcd lor thcir sins. 8crnard 8osanquct, thc lcading 8ritish
philosophcr ol my youth, wcnt so lar as to arguc that, on purcly
logical grounds, carthquakcs. though possiblc in sccondratc capitals
such as Lisbon, could not occur in a rcally grcat city likc London.
Tc Tokyo carthquakc occurrcd altcr his book was publishcd, but
thcn thc Japancsc, as wc know, arc wickcd.
!n thc +8th Ccntury it was hcld that all sucring, cvcn that ol
animals, is duc to Adams sin, and did not cxist bclorc thc lall. Until
that latal momcnt, mosquitocs did not sting, snakcs wcrc not vcn
omous, and lions wcrc strictly vcgctarian. Unlortunatcly, in thc carly
+th Ccntury gcologists discovcrcd lossils ol carnivorous animals
which, it. was rightly hcld, must havc cxistcd bclorc man appcarcd
on thc carth. Vc can all scc how right and just it is that animals catcn
by othcr animals should sucr bccausc Adam and vc wcrc wickcd,
but why should thcy havc sucrcd bclorc our parcnts rst sinncd:
Tis problcm causcd agonics ol pcrplcxity to thc pious biologists ol
:
a hundrcd ycars ago. Somc lorms ol punishmcnt hcrc on carth arc
spccially rcscrvcd lor sinncrs. Pcrsccutors ol thc carly Church, as
Lactantius pointcd out, wcrc apt to bc catcn ol worms. Tc dcath
ol Artus, who hcld shocking opinions on thc Trinity, was a warning
to sinncrs: his bowcls gushcd out, as did thosc ol somc lcss lamous
hcrctics. 8ut Montaignc pointcd out that thc samc latc had bclallcn
mcn ol undoubtcd virtuc, it only rcmaincd, thcrclorc, to lall back on
thc mystcrious dispcnsations ol Providcncc.
Tc lavoritc argumcnt was, and pcrhaps still is, thc argumcnt
lrom dcsign. Could this univcrsc, obcdicnt as it is to natural laws,
havc comc about without a Lawgivcr: Could thc sublimity ol thc
starry hcavcns, thc majcsty ol thc occan, thc song ol thc skylark, and
thc lovclincss ol spring owcrs, havc comc about by chancc: As thc
poct sings:
8chold thc snowakc cxquisitc in lorm,
Vas it madc pcrlcct by unwilling norm:
Tc argumcnt lromdcsign has, howcvcr, a logical wcakncss whcn
uscd by thosc who bclicvc thc Crcator to bc omnipotcnt. csign
implics thc ncccssity ol using mcans, which docs not cxist lor om
nipotcncc. Vhcn wc dcsirc a housc, wc havc to go through thc labor
ol building it, put Aladdins gcnic could causc a palacc to cxist by
magic. Tc long proccss ol cvolution might bc ncccssary to a divinc
Articcr who lound mattcr alrcady in cxistcncc, and had to strugglc
to bring ordcr out ol chaos. 8ut to thc God ol Gcncsis and ol or
thodox thcology no such laborious proccss was nccdcd, no gradual
proccss, no adaptation ol mcans to cnds, was rcquircd by thc 8cing
who could say: Lct thcrc bc light, and thcrc was light. Tc vast
astronomical and gcological agcs bclorc lilc cxistcd may havc bccn
incvitablc lor a nitc city working in a rcluctant matcrial, but lor
mnipotcncc thcy would havc bccn a gratuitous wastc ol timc.
:6
Lct us thcn considcr thc hypothcsis (which now has inucntial
advocatcs) ol a God who is not omnipotcnt, who is wcll mcaning,
but has constantly to strugglc against obstaclcs put in his way by
prccxisting Naturc.
Tis hypothcsis, it must bc said, cannot bc disprovcd. Tcrc is
nothing known about thc univcrsc that provcs it to bc lalsc. 8ut it
is opcn to thc samc objcction that wc lormcrly uscd against Lcibniz,
that is to say, that a nonomnipotcnt dcvil is as lcast as plausiblc as a
nonomnipotcnt God. n this hypothcsis, wc shall supposc that thc
univcrsc originally consistcd only ol mattcr, with thc solc cxccption
ol Satan, who studicd it scicntically with a vicw to discovcring its
potcntialitics ol cvil. Hc soon saw that thcrc could bc no cvil without
lilc, and hc thcrclorc sct to work to discovcr howto crcatc lilc. Hc had
to wait a long timc, till thc ncbula had condcnscd into stars ,thc stars
had thrown out plancts, and thc plancts had coolcd. At last, whcn thc
momcnt had arrivcd so lar as physics was conccrncd, hc sct to work
to study chcmistry, and discovcrcd that a ccrtain compound, il hc
could synthcsizc it, would bc at oncc scnticnt and scllpcrpctuating.
Altcr many corts, hc succccdcd in making thc gcrm ol lilc, thcn,
with thc scnsc ol labor rcwardcd, hc mumblcd:
Mischicl, thou arc aloot! Now lct it work.
At rst thc proccss was rcgrcttably slow. Sca slimc had only thc
rudimcnts ol lccling, and cvcn whcn cvolution had got as lar as oystcrs
thcir pangs wcrc still rcgrcttably dim. 8ut altcr that things bcgan to
go bcttcr. Sharks kcpt humblcr .shcs in a statc ol tcrror, hawks madc
littlc birds miscrablc, and cats brought tragcdy into thc livcs ol micc.
8ut thcrc was still somcthing lacking: in bctwccn timcs, animals
would pcrsist in bcing happy, and lorgctting thc horrors that thc ncxt
momcnt might bring At last, to Satans innitc dclight, Man was
:
cvolvcd, with thc latal gilts ol mcmory and lorcsight. ach horror
that happcncd to Man lclt its indcliblc mark in his mind, hc could
not lorgct that what had occurrcd might occur again, and in warding
o mislortunc hc lost thc joy ol lilc. Furious at his own miscry, hc
sought thc causc in thc misdccds ol othcr mcn, and turncd upon
thcm in savagc battlc, thus magnilying a thousand timcs thc ills that
Naturc has providcd. Vith incrcasing glcc, Satan watchcd thc dismal
proccss. At last, to crown his joy, mcn appcarcd who sucrcd not
only lrom thcir own sucring, but lrom that ol all mankind. Tcir
prcaching rouscd thcir lollowcrs to angcr against thosc who rcluscd
to acccpt it, and so in thc cnd incrcascd thc sum ol human miscry.
Vhcn Satan saw this, his happincss was at last complctc.
8ut all this is nothing but a plcasant lancy. Mcn, as is natural,
havc an intcnsc dcsirc to humanizc thc univcrsc: God and Satan,
alikc, arc csscntially human gurcs, thc onc a projcction ol oursclvcs,
thc othcr ol our cncmics. 8oth alikc havc purposcs, and thcir activ
itics, likc ours, spring lrom dcsirc. A somcwhat dicult cort ol
imagination is rcquircd bclorc wc can conccivc a univcrsc without
purposc, dcvcloping blindly in accordancc with aimlcss habits. Vc
lccl an impulsc to ask why: mcaning not lrom what causcs, but to
what cnd. Tc Grccks thought that thc sun and moon and plancts
wcrc cach movcd about by a god, who was actuatcd by an acsthctic
lovc ol rcgularity such as inspircd thc Parthcnon. Tis vicw madc thc
hcavcns lccl cozy. 8ut gradually it was discovcrcd that thc rcgularity
is only approximatc: thc plancts movc in cllipscs, not in circlcs, and
cvcn thc cllipscs arc inaccuratc. Tc only thing that sccmcd to rcmain
prccisc and cxact was Ncwtons law ol gravitation, though now wc
know that this too was only roughly truc. Howcvcr, thcrc ccrtainly
sccmcd to bc laws ol naturc, and whcrc thcrc arc laws (wc arc told)
thcrc must bc a Lawgivcr.
:8
!n thc pcriod immcdiatcly lollowing Ncwton this point ol vicw
had much plausibility, and convinccd cvcn such tcmpcramcntal skcp
tics as \oltairc. 8ut alas! Tc laws ol naturc arc not what thcy uscd
to bc, thcy havc bccomc mcrc statistical avcragcs. Tcrc is no longcr
anything in physics to suggcst thc Almighty Vatchmakcr, who madc
such a supcrlativc watch that it only had to bc wound up oncc. Tc
laws ol naturc, likc thc laws ol chancc, arc only vcricd whcn largc
numbcrs ol !nstanccs arc conccrncd, and thcn only approximatcly.
Morcovcr, thc univcrsc, likc humanly madc watchcs, and unlikc thc
supcrlativc watch ol +8th Ccntury thcology, is running down, cncrgy
!s only usclul whcn it is uncvcnly distributcd, and it is continually
approaching ncarcr and ncarcr to complctc cquality ol distribution.
Vhcn oncc this pcrlcction ol cosmic dcmocracy has bccn achicvcd,
nothing ol thc slightcst intcrcst to man or God or dcvil can cvcr
happcn again, unlcss omnipotcncc sccs t to wind thc watch up oncc
morc.
8ut altcr all, thc champion ol cosmic purposc will say, it is Life
that cxhibits thc important part ol thc divinc plan, thc rcst is only
stagc sccncry. 8clorc arwin, thc marvcllous adaptation ol animals
to thcir cnvironmcnt was rcgardcd as cvidcncc ol bcncvolcnt purposc
on thc part ol thc city, but thc thcory ol natural sclcction providcd
a scicntic cxplanation ol a vast collcction ol lacts which had bccn
scrviccablc to thc thcologians. Vc can now scc, in a gcncral way, how,
givcn thc chcmical propcrtics ol living substancc, ordinary physical
and chcmical lorccs wcrc likcly to sct thc proccss ol cvolution in
motion. Truc. wc cannot manulacturc lilc in thc laboratory, and
until wc havc donc so it is opcn to thc orthodox to maintain that wc
shall ncvcr bc ablc to do so. 8ut lor my part ! scc no rcason why
organic chcmists could not, within thc ncxt hundrcd ycars, manulac
turc living microorganisms. !t may takc somc timcsay a million
:
ycarsto causc thcsc to dcvclop by articial sclcction into giracs
and hippopotamuscs and tigcrs. Vhcn this has bccn achicvcd, no
doubt thc thcologians will still maintain that MAN can only bc madc
by thc city, but ! lcar thc biologists will soon rclutc this last hopc.
Vhcthcr articial man will bc bcttcr or worsc than thc natural sort !
do not vcnturc to prcdict.
Tcrc would sccm, thcrclorc, to bc no cvidcncc that thc coursc
ol cvcnts has bccn planncd cithcr by an omnipotcnt or by a non
omnipotcnt city: thcrc is also no cvidcncc that it has not bccn
planncd. Nor, il thcrc bc a city, is thcrc any cvidcncc as to his
moral attributcs. Hc may bc doing His bcst undcr dicultics, Hc
may bc doing His worst, but bc unablc to prcvcnt thc accidcntal cmcr
gcncc ol a littlc bit ol good now and thcn. r, again, His purposcs
may bc purcly acsthctic: Hc may not carc whcthcr His crcaturcs arc
happy or unhappy, but only whcthcr thcy providc a plcasing spcctaclc.
All thcsc hypothcscs arc cqually probablc, in thc scnsc that thcrc is
not a shrcd ol cvidcncc lor or against any ol thcm. Nor should wc nc
glcct thc Zoroastrian hypothcsis ol two Grcat Spirits, onc good and
onc bad, thc good onc to achicvc nal victory whcn Pcrsia conqucrs
all thc world. Aristotlc thought thcrc wcrc or gods, this vicw
also dcscrvcs our charitablc rcspcct. l possiblc hypothcscs thcrc is
no cnd, but in thc abscncc ol cvidcncc wc havc no right to inclinc
towards thosc that wc happcn to nd agrccablc.
Vhat arc wc to think ol immortality: To most modcrn Chris
tians this qucstion sccms to bc bound up with that ol thc cxistcncc
ol God, but both historically and logically thc qucstions arc quitc
distinct. 8uddhists. though in thcir carly days thcy wcrc Athcists,
bclicvcd that thc soul survivcs dcath, cxccpt whcn such a pitch ol
virtuc has bccn achicvcd as to dcscrvc Nirvana. Tc Jcws ol thc ld
Tcstamcnt, though thcy bclicvcd in God, did not (lor thc most part)
o
bclicvc in immortality. Clcarly both thcsc vicws arc possiblc, thc
qucstion ol immortality is thcrclorc, at lcast in somc dcgrcc, distinct
lrom that ol thc cxistcncc ol God.
!n thc natural thcology that has grown up in Christian civiliza
tions, thc two qucstions arc conncctcd through ivinc Justicc. Tc
good, in this lilc, arc not always happy, nor arc thc wickcd always
unhappy, Tcrclorc, il thc world is govcrncd by a just God, thcrc
must bc a luturc lilc, whcrc thc good will cnjoy ctcrnal bliss and
thc wickcd will sucr ctcrnal tormcnt~r at any ratc such purilying
pains as may ultimatcly makc thcm good. !l thcrc is a just God, and
il thcrc is lrcc will (without which sin bccomcs mcaninglcss), thcrc
is somc lorcc !n this argumcnt. Arc thcrc any othcrs that should
convincc us ol thc !mmortality ol thc soul:
First ol all, what is mcant by thc soul: Vc arc supposcd to
consist ol two things, onc callcd a body, thc othcr callcd thc mind or
soul. Tc body can bc wcighcd on a wcighing machinc, it can movc
about, lall downstairs, havc picccs cut o by a surgcon, and so on.
Tc mind, mcanwhilc, docs quitc othcr things: it thinks and lccls and
wills. !l my lcg is amputatcd, no part ol my soul is cut o, convcrscly,
whcn ! slccp my body rcmains intact. Among thc movcmcnts ol my
body, wc can distinguish thosc that spring lrom thc mind lrom thosc
that havc a purcly physical origin: il ! walk along a strcct, ! do so
bccausc my mind has so choscn, but il ! slip on a piccc ol orangc
pccl my mind has no part in causing thc conscqucnt collapsc. Tcsc
distinctions arc so lamiliar that wc takc thcm as a mattcr ol coursc,
but thcir origin is in lact thcological rathcr than scicntic. Tcy
bcgin with Plato, so Jar as cxplicit philosophy is conccrncd, but wcrc
takcn ovcr by him lrom thc rphic rcligion. From Plato, and also
lrom somc othcr sourccs, thc scparation ol soul and body was takcn
ovcr by Christianity, and in timc pcoplc camc to think ol it as an
+
unqucstionablc truth.
8ut in lact both soul and body arc mctaphysical abstractions,
what wc know lrom cxpcricncc arc occurrcnccs. Vc know thoughts,
but not thc supposcd thinkcr, wc know particular volitions, but not
thc will pcr sc. Nor arc wc !n any bcttcr casc as rcgards thc body.
Physicists, who arc supposcd to know most about mattcr, say thc
oddcst things about it. According to thcm, it is mcrcly a convc
nicnt ction, what rcally gocs on !n thc physical world, thcy say, is a
pcrpctual rcdistribution ol cncrgy, somctimcs by suddcn cxplosions,
somctimcs !n gradually sprcading wavcs. Tc body, which sccms
so solid and lamiliar, consists, thcy say, mainly ol holcs in wavcs ol
probability. !l you do not undcrstand what this mcans, ! will conlcss
that ! do not cithcr. 8ut howcvcr that may bc, it is clcar that my body,
which !s dcscribcd on my passport, and my mind, which is dcscribcd
by othcr philosophcrs, arc alikc mainly convcnicnt ways ol grouping
phcnomcna, and that phcnomcna, so lar as wc know thcm, havc not
thc charactcristics that wc associatc cithcr with mind or with body,
sincc thcy arc bricl and cvancsccnt. Tc phcnomcna, in lact, arc not
spccially mcntal or spccially matcrial, thcy arc thc raw matcrial out
ol which, lor convcnicncc ol discoursc, wc construct thc systcms that
wc call minds and bodics.
Tc qucstion ol thc immortality ol thc soul can, howcvcr, bc rc
statcd so as to takc account ol thcsc modcrn thcorics, ur thoughts
and lcclings, whilc wc livc, arc linkcd togcthcr by mcmory and cxpc
ricncc. Vc can !nquirc whcthcr, altcr wc arc dcad, thcrc will still bc
thoughts and lcclings that rcmcmbcr thosc wc had whcn wc livcd on
carth, lor, il thcrc will bc, thcy may bc rcgardcd as still bclonging to
us, in thc only scnsc in which our thoughts and lcclings in this lilc
bclong to us.
Statcd in this way, it must bc said that immortality appcars cx
:
cccdingly improbablc. Mcmory is clcarly associatcd with thc brain,
and thcrc is nothing to suggcst that mcmory can survivc altcr thc
brain has disintcgratcd. Tis sccms as improbablc as that a rc will
survivc altcr it has burnt cvcrything combustiblc in its ncighborhood.
!t would bc going too lar to say that wc know such things to bc impos
siblc, wc scldom know cnough to say that this or that cannot happcn.
8ut on ordinary scicntic grounds, sccing thc intimatc corrclation ol
mcntal and ccrcbral organization, wc can say that thc survival ol thc
onc without thc othcr must rcmain no morc than a barc possibility.
with much cvidcncc against it and nonc in its lavor.
8ut, cvcn supposing thc dogmas ol rcligion to bc lalsc. it may bc
urgcd that thcy aord comlort to bclicvcrs and do littlc harm. Tat
thcy do littlc harm !s not truc. pposition to birth control makcs
it impossiblc to solvc thc population problcm, and thcrclorc post
poncs !ndcnitcly all chancc ol world pcacc, it also sccurcs. whcrcvcr
thc Jaw is what thc Catholic votc has madc it in Connccticut. that
womcn incapablc ol surviving childbirth shall dic in lutilc connc
mcnts. Tc inucncc ol thc Anglican Church in ngland succs to
insurc that victims ol canccr shall sucr agonics as long as possiblc,
howcvcr much thcy thcmsclvcs may dcsirc cuthanasia. rthodox
Protcstantism in Tcnncsscc succs to prcvcnt honcst tcaching ol
biology. Not only. howcvcr, whcrc thc law !ntcrvcncs docs ortho
doxy do harm. ! was myscll at onc timc ocially conccrncd in thc
appointmcnt ol a philosophy prolcssor in an important Amcrican
univcrsity, all thc othcrs agrccd that ol coursc hc must bc a good
Christian. Practically all philosophcrs ol any intcllcctual cmincncc
arc opcnly or sccrctly lrccthinkcrs, thc insistcncc on orthodoxy thcrc
lorc ncccssitatcd thc appointmcnt ol a noncntity or a humbug.
n many important moral issucs ol modcrn timcs, thc Church
has thrown !ts !nucncc on thc sidc ol cruclty or illcgality. ! will givc

two cxamplcs. Lcopold, King ol thc 8clgians. was also King ol thc
Congo Frcc Statc. His rulc involvcd what wcrc probably thc worst
and most systcmatic atrocitics in thc long bloodstaincd annals ol thc
opprcssion ol Ncgrocs by whitc mcn. Vhcn thc lacts bccamc known,
thc 8clgian Socialist Party, which consistcd ol lrccthinkcrs, did
cvcrything in !ts powcr to mitigatc thc horrors ol thc Kings pcrsonal
tyranny, thc Church, on thc contrary, was obstructivc and tricd in
cvcry possiblc way to intcrlcrc with thc publicity ol thosc who wcrc
dcnouncing thc horrors. Tc Church lailcd. but il thc nativcs ol
thc 8clgian Congo no longcr sucr as thcy did it is no thanks to thc
prolcsscd lollowcrs ol Christ who occupicd thc important posts in
thc Catholic hicrarchy.
Tc othcr cxamplc is morc rcccnt. !t is supposcd that wc arc
ghting to sccurc thc rcign ol lawand thc victory ol dcmocracy. Spain
had a lcgally clcctcd dcmocratic govcrnmcnt, but thc Church dislikcd
!t. Pious Gcncrals who wcrc orthodox sons ol thc Church madc a
military insurrcction against thc lcgal and dcmocratic govcrnmcnt.
and in thc cnd thc Church, with thc hclp ol Hitlcr and Mussolini, was
succcsslul in rcimposing tyranny on thc gallant Spanish champions
ol lrccdom. !n this contcst Amcrica ocially rcluscd to lilt a ngcr
to hclp thc Loyalists. and cvcn straincd thc intcrprctation ol thc law
so as to prcvcnt hclp lrom bcing givcn to thc Loyalists by privatc
Amcrican citizcns. Tc govcrnmcnt took this linc in ordcr to plcasc
Amcrican Catholics. with thc rcsult, not only that thc Spaniards
sucr, but that wc havc lost a possiblc ally in thc war. Tc 8ritish
govcrnmcnt. pcrhaps lor somcwhat dicrcnt rcasons. was at lcast
cqually culpablc.
Christian orthodoxy, howcvcr, is no longcr thc chicl dangcr to
lrcc thought. Tc grcatcst dangcr in our day comcs lrom ncw rcli
gions. Communism and Nazism. To call thcsc rcligions may pcrhaps

bc objcctionablc both to thcir lricnds and to thcir cncmics, but in

lact thcy havc all thc charactcristics ol rcligions. Tcy advocatc a way
ol lilc on thc basis ol irrational dogmas, thcy havc a sacrcd history,
a Mcssiah, and a pricsthood. ! do not scc what morc could bc dc
mandcd to qualily a doctrinc as a rcligion. 8ut lct us cxaminc cach
ol thcm Po littlc morc narrowly.
Vhcn ! spcak ol communism in this conncction, ! do not mcan
thc doctrinc that mcns goods ought to bc hcld in common. Tis
is an ancicnt doctrinc, advocatcd by Plato, apparcntly hcld by thc
primitivc Church, rcvivcd constantly by rcligious sccts during thc
middlc agcs, and condcmncd by onc ol thc Articlcs ol thc Church
ol ngland. Vith its truth or lalschood ! am not conccrncd, what !
am conccrncd with is thc doctrinc ol thc modcrn Communistic Party,
and ol thc Russian Govcrnmcnt to which it owcs allcgiancc.
According to this doctrinc, thc world dcvclops on thc lincs ol a
Plan callcd ialcctical Matcrialism, rst discovcrcd by Karl Marx, cm
bodicd in thc practicc ol a grcat statc by Lcnin, and now cxpoundcd
lrom day to day by a Church ol which Stalin is thc Popc. Tosc
who disagrcc with thc Popc cithcr as to doctrinc or as to church gov
crnmcnt arc to bc liquidatcd il possiblc, il that is not possiblc, thcy
arc to bc bamboozlcd. Frcc discussion is to bc prcvcntcd whcrcvcr
thc powcr to do so cxists, rcvclation is to bc intcrprctcd, without
argumcnt, not by dcmocratic proccss, but by thc dicta ol ccclcsias
tical dignitarics. !t has alrcady bccomc apparcnt that thc original
cthic ol thc carly communists, likc that ol thc carly Christians, whilc
still trcatcd with vcrbal rcspcct, is not to bc lollowcd in actual lilc,
indccd thosc who would practise communism, likc thc Franciscans
who practiscd apostolic povcrty, arc hcrctics, to bc supprcsscd with
thc utmost rigor ol pcrsccution. !l this doctrinc and this organization
prcvail, lrcc inquiry will bccomc as impossiblc as it was in thc middlc

agcs, and thc world will rclapsc into bigotry and obscurantism.
Tc thcory ol thc Nazis, howcvcr, is dcnitcly worsc. Lct us
considcr its salicnt points. Tcrc is a mastcr racc, thc Gcrmans, which
is divincly ordaincd to rulc thc rcst ol mankind, not lor thcir good, but
lor its own. riginally it was thought that raccs akin to thc Gcrmans
sharcd somc ol thcir mcrits, but this turncd out to bc a mistakc, in
Norway, lor instancc, thcrc arc no gcnuinc Nordics cxccpt Quisling
and a handlul ol lollowcrs. NonAryans arc spccially wickcd, and
thc most wickcd ol nonAryans arc thc Jcws. Tc Japancsc, on thc
othcr band, arc so virtuous that thcy may count as honorary Aryans.
Tc Gcrmans, alas, havc bccn corruptcd by Jcwish !nucnccs,
notably Christ and Marx. Vhat thcy wcrc bclorc this unlortunatc
poison got into thcir blood may bc sccn in thc pagcs ol Tacitus. Vhcn
it has bccn climinatcd, thcy will again pcrccivc that war is thc noblcst
ol human activitics, and thc opportunity ol tyranny its most splcndid
rcward. thcr nations, strangc to say, sccm blind to thc supcriority
ol thc Gcrmans, but it was hopcd that tanks and plancs would provc
ccicnt missionarics ol thc ncw crccd. Tis hopc, howcvcr, is now
rapidly lading.
No such tissuc ol nonscnsc could havc bccn bclicvcd by any pop
ulation traincd to cxaminc cvidcncc scicntically, and to basc its
opinions on rational grounds. Scllcstccm, pcrsonal, national, or hu
man, is onc ol thc grcat sourccs ol irrational bclicl, in thc casc ol thc
Nazis, thc scllcstccm is national. ducation should bc dircctcd, in
part, to tcaching thc young to think indcpcndcntly ol thcir prcjudiccs,
cspccially thcir collcctivc prcjudiccs, which arc politically thc most
harmlul. 8ut this is not donc anywhcrc, cvcry national govcrnmcnt
nds national scllcstccm usclul, cvcry rich govcrnmcnt nds admi
ration ol thc plutocracy usclul, cvcry obscurantist govcrnmcnt nds
crcdulity usclul. Nowhcrc, thcrclorc, cxccpt among thc csotcric clitc
6
ol a lcw univcrsitics, is anything donc to promotc an honcst attcmpt
to dccidc qucstions according to thc cvidcncc. And so crcdulous
populations arc lclt dclcnsclcss against thc wilcs ol clcvcr politicians,
who lcad thcm through inatcd scllcstccm to hatrcd, lrom hatrcd
to war, lrom war to univcrsal miscry. Tc modcrn advanccs in thc
art ol propaganda havc bccn mct with no corrcsponding advanccs in
training to rcsist propaganda. And so thc populations ol thc world,
onc by onc as civilization rcachcs thcm, go down into a dark pit
ol madncss, whcrc all that is worth prcscrving pcrishcs in aimlcss
slaughtcr.
Tc crccd that ! am prcaching, il it can bc callcd a crccd, is a sim
plc onc, that, il you havc an opinion about any mattcr, it should hc
bascd on asccrtaincd lacts, not upon hopc or lcar or prcjudicc. Tcrc
is a known cducational tcchniquc by which pupils ol avcragc !ntclli
gcncc can bc taught to discount thcir passions whcn thcy think, but
almost cvcrywhcrc thc authoritics prcvcnt thc usc ol this tcchniquc.
Tc authoritics, almost cvcrywhcrc, arc convinccd that thcy would bc
ovcrthrown il thc public wcrc to cxaminc thcir claims dispassionatcly,
thcy thcrclorc cncouragc passionatc as opposcd to rational thinking.
Sooncr or latcr, thcy bccomc so tyrannical that thcy arc ovcrthrown,
passionatcly, not rationally. Altcr thc pot ol passion has boilcd long
cnough, a ncw crust lorms, and thc ncw authoritics arc usually no
bcttcr than thc old. Louis X\! is cxccutcd, and is succccdcd, rst by
Robcspicrrc, thcn by Napolcon. Tsar Nicholas is assassinatcd, and
a strictcr tyranny lollows undcr Lcnin and Stalin. To this rulc thc
Amcrican Rcvolution is onc ol thc rarc cxccptions, and !t was lcd
by lrccthinkcrs, Vashington and Adams, just as much as Jccrson,
rcjcctcd thc orthodoxy that most ol thcir lollowcrs acccptcd.
Fcw modcrn obscurantists havc thc couragc to say that it is bcttcr
to bclicvc what is lalsc than what is truc. !n antiquity and !n thc +th

and +8th ccnturics !t was commonly hcld that rcligion was ncccssary
to kccp thc poor submissivc, and should thcrclorc bc bclicvcd by thcm
although aristocrats might havc sccn through it. vcn in thc +th
ccntury, many Frcnch lrccthinkcrs likcd thcir wivcs to bc bclicvcrs,
!n thc hopc that !t would kccp thcm chastc. 8ut dcmocracy and
votcs lor womcn havc madc thcsc points ol vicw obsolctc, nowadays,
il you wish to advocatc rcligion lor thc masscs, you must advocatc !t
lor cvcryonc, and il you arc to advocatc it lor cvcryonc you must do
so, at lcast nominally, on thc ground that you bclicvc it to bc truc.
Tc insinccrity ol this appcal to truth is shown by thc unwill
ingncss to trust to lrcc discussion or to allow thc scicntic habit ol
mind to bc taught in cducation. !l you think that a doctrinc can only
bc rcndcrcd acccptablc by thc stakc or thc conccntration camp, you
cvidcntly havc not much condcncc in thc rational grounds !n its
lavor. !l you think it is ncccssary to lorbid thc publication or salc ol
books which contradict your opinions, you cvidcntly hold that such
books, in a lrcc !ntcllcctual compctition, would bc likcly to gct thc
bcst ol thc argumcnt.
You may, ol coursc, lall back on an antidcmocratic point ol
vicw. You may say: Vc, thc Ccnsors, or wc thc dignitarics ol thc
Church, or wc thc agcnts lor govcrnmcnt propaganda, arc wisc mcn
and traincd !nvcstigators, wc havc cxamincd all thc cvidcncc, and
rcachcd a conclusion, which happcns, by a mcrc coincidcncc, to bc
in linc with thc intcrcst ol thc authoritics. 8ut thc populacc havc not
thc timc to study such qucstions dccply, subvcrsivc agitators will, il
wc lcavc thcm lrcc, makc appcals to vulgar passions, which it would
rcquirc much timc and work to combat. Sincc wc knowthc truth, is it
not bcttcr that wc should impart it, and should lorbid all attcmpts to
causc thc disscmination ol what our wisdom shows to bc lalschood:
Lct us tcach humility to thc public, and thcn tcll thcm lrom timc to
8
timc what wc dccm it good that thcy should know. !n this way all
thc timc spcnt on lutilc and vcxatious argumcntation will bc savcd.
Vhcrc thc truth rcally is known, thcrc is somcthing to bc said lor
this vicw. Tc multiplication tablc is taught dogmatically, a tcachcr
who hcld hcrctical opinions about it would hardly gct a job. 8ut
in such mattcrs thcrc is no nccd ol ccnsorship, no onc in lact holds
hcrctical vicws about thc multiplication tablc. Hcrctical vicws arisc
whcn thc truth is unccrtain, and it is only whcn thc truth is unccrtain
that ccnsorship is invokcd. !n lact, it is dicult to nd anything
rcally ccrtain outsidc thc rcalmol purc mathcmatics and somc lacts ol
history and gcography. !l supprcssion ol lrcc discussion is ncccssary
in ordcr to causc an opinion to bc bclicvcd, that in itscll is cvidcncc
that thc rational grounds in lavor ol thc opinion arc inadcquatc, lor il
thcy wcrc adcquatc lrcc discussion would bc thc bcst way ol making
thc opinion prcvail. Vhcn thc authoritics prolcss to knowsomcthing
which to thc unprcjudiccd pcrson sccms doubtlul or lalsc, thcy arc
cithcr thcmsclvcs thc victims ol prcjudicc, or thcy arc dishoncstly
trying to rcprcscnt thc intcrcst ol thcir class or crccd or nation as
coinciding with thc gcncral intcrcst. !n cithcr casc, intcrlcrcncc with
lrcc discussion can only do harm.
Somc onc may objcct that, whilc lrcc thought may bc all vcry wcll
in thc abstract, it wont do in this actual world, bccausc lanaticism
is nccdcd lor victory in battlc. thcr things bcing cqual, wc may bc
told, thc holdcrs ol an irrational warlikc crccd will always win thc
\ictory ovcr pcacclul lolk who only want a quict lilc. Tcrc is no
doubt an clcmcnt ol truth in this argumcnt, but it is a small clcmcnt,
and what truth is contains is only lor thc short run. Tc Gcrmans
and Japancsc, by mcans ol thcir lanaticism, wcrc ablc to win initial
\ictorics, but thcir vcry lanaticism rouscd thc hostility ol thc world,
and is lcading to thcir downlall. Fanatics, just bccausc thcy lack

thc scicntic tcmpcr, cannot wcigh risks calmly, and arc pronc to
ovcrcstimatc thc chanccs ol \ictory. !n thc long run, lanaticism is
incompatiblc with scicntic cxccllcncc, which is thc most important
sourcc ol strcngth in modcrn war. !n a war bctwccn a scicntic and a
lanatical nation, givcn cqual matcrial rcsourccs, thc scicntic nation
is prctty surc to bc victorious.
Vc havc wandcrcd into political and social qucstions, but thc
corc ol thc argumcnt lor lrcc thought lics in thc individual lilc. !t
is good to ask oursclvcs, lrom timc to timc, what sort ol pcrson wc
should wish to bc. Vhcn ! ask myscll this qucstion, ! nd that !
dcsirc at oncc a kind ol pridc and a kind ol humility. As lor pridc: !
do not wish to bc lorccd or cajolcd into any opinion bccausc othcrs
dcsirc that ! should hold it, nor do ! wish to bc thc victim ol my own
hopcs and lcars to thc cxtcnt ol allowing myscll to livc in an unrcal
world ol plcasant makcbclicvc. ! rcspcct, in myscll and othcrs, thc
powcr ol thought and ol scicntic invcstigation. by mcans ol which
wc havc acquircd whatcvcr knowlcdgc wc posscss ol thc univcrsc in
which wc livc. And thought, whcn it !s gcnuinc thought, has its
own intrinsic morality and its own brand ol asccticism. 8ut it has
also its rcwards: a happincss, amounting at momcnts to ccstasy, !n
undcrstanding what had bccn obscurc, and survcying in a unicd
vision what had sccmcd dctachcd and chaotic lragmcnts.
8ut thc pursuit ol truth, whcn it is prolound and gcnuinc, rcquircs
also a kind ol humility which has somc anity to submission to thc
will ol God. Tc univcrsc is what it is, not what ! choosc that it
should bc. !l it is indicrcnt to human dcsircs, as it sccms to bc, il
human lilc is a passing cpisodc, hardly noticcablc in thc vastncss ol
cosmic proccsscs, il thcrc is no supcrhuman purposc, and no hopc ol
ultimatc salvation, it is bcttcr to know and acknowlcdgc this truth
than to cndcavor, in lutilc scllasscrtion, to ordcr thc univcrsc to bc
o
what wc nd comlortablc.
Towards lacts, submission is thc only rational attitudc, but in thc
rcalm ol idcals thcrc is nothing to which to submit. Tc univcrsc is
ncithcr hostilc nor lricndly, it ncithcr lavors our idcals nor rclutcs
thcm. ur individual lilc is bricl, and pcrhaps thc wholc lilc ol
mankind will bc bricl il mcasurcd on an astronomical scalc. 8ut that
is no rcason lor not living it as sccms bcst to us. Tc things that
sccm to us good arc nonc thc lcss good lor not bcing ctcrnal, and
wc should not ask ol thc univcrsc an cxtcrnal approval ol our own
cthical standards.
Tc lrccthinkcrs univcrsc may sccm blcak and cold to thosc
who havc bccn accustomcd to thc comlortablc indoor warmth ol thc
Christian cosmology. 8ut to thosc who havc grown accustomcd to
it, it has its own sublimity, and conlcrs its own joys. !n lcarning to
think lrccly wc havc lcarnt to thrust lcar out ol our thoughts, and
this lcsson, oncc lcarnt, brings a kind ol pcacc which is impossiblc
to thc slavc ol hcsitant and unccrtain crcdulity.