Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/832

 RELIGION

744

RELIGION

zeal. The latter kind are not infrequent in Cal- \Tnistic forms of Protestantism, where the fear of being outside the elect, heightened by lapses into sin, leads to spiritual depression and misery with a cor- responding yearning for a Divine assurance of salva- tion. Such conversions, coming unexpectedly and transforming the individual into a new man, happy in the consciousness of DiNine love and active in works of piety, have been popularly viewed as miracu- lous in every instance. That many of these con- versions may be of a purely natural order seems to be shown by modern psychology, which offers the plausible theory of the sudden uprush into con- sciousness of subliminal acti\'ities set unconsciously in operation by intense, persistent longings for a change to a better, more spiritual life. But it must be recognized that this theory- has its limitations. The grace of God may be working in manj^ conver- sions that allow of a natural explanation. Sloreover, there are conversions that defy any such natural explanation as the working of subUminal conscious- ness. It cannot, for instance, explain the con- version of St. Paul, who, from a rabid hater of Cliris- tianity, was suddenly turned into one of its most ardent champions, a result that was the very antithesis of his previous conscientious belief and aspirations. That his vision of Christ was real and objective is proved by the wonderful accession of knowledge that it brought to his mind, fitting him to stand forth un- challenged as one of Christ's Apostles. There is no natural explanation for a conversion such as this.

C. Sacred Books. — There remains a word to be said, by way of supplement, of the sacred literature characteristic of most higher religions. Both the speculative and the practical side of religion contrib- ute to its formation. Many elements, accumulated through a long series of generations, go to compose the sacred books of the great rehgions of antiquity — the traditional myths and legends; the stories of the providential dealing of the Deity with His people; the sacred chants, hymns and prayers; the great epic poems; the laws governing social and domestic activity; the texts of the sacred rites and the pre- scriptions regulating their exact performance; specu- lations on the nature of the Deity, the soul, retri- bution, and the future life. In some of the ancient religions this enormous mass of sacred lore was transmitted orally from generation to generation till finally it was put in writing. In everj' religion possessing sacred books, there is a tendency to give them a much greater antiquity than they actually enjoy, and to view them as the infalUble expression of Di\-ine wisdom. This latter claim vanishes quickly when they are compared with the inspired books of the Bible, which in spiritual and literary worth stand immeasurablj' above them.

IV. The Origin of Religion. — The beginnings of religion go back to remote prehistoric time. In the absence of positive, historic data, the question of the origin of religion admits only of a speculative answer. It is Catholic teaching that primitive re- Ugion was a Divinely revealed Monotheism. This was an anticipation and a perfection of the notion of religion, which man from the beginning was naturally capable of acquiring. Religion, like moralitj-, has apart from revelation a natural basis or origin. It is the outcome of the use of reason, though, without the corrective influence of revelation, it is very apt to be misconceived and distorted.

A. Modern Apj>Iication of the Principle of Cau- sality. — Religion,'in its last analysis, rests on a theistic interpretation of nature. The Christian philosopher arrives at this by a process of discursive reasoning, making use of arguments drawn from external nature and from his inner consciou-sncss (see article Cod). This, however, is a highly philosophic pro- cess of reasoning, the result of the accumulated con-

tributions of many generations of thinkers. It pre- supposes a mind trained to abstract reasoning, and hence is by no means easy for the average individual. It can hardly have been the method followed by savage man, whose mind was not trained to philoso- phy and science. The process bj- which he arrived naturally at a theistic interpretation of the world seems to have been a simple, spontaneous applicar tion of the principle of causality.

B. Primitive Application of the Prittciple of Cau- sality. — There is every reason to think that primitive man's \dew of nature was, to a large extent, similar to that held by peoples generally who have not risen to a scientific knowledge of the laws of nature. They recognize in all the striking phenomena of earth, air, and sky the immediate agency of intelligent vohtion. Untutored man does not understand the secondary, mechanical causes of natural events. The causes best known to him are living, personal causes, him- self and his fellow-men. Familiarity with lifeless objects, as stocks and stones, weapons and utensils, shows that even these things exhibit only such move- ment and force as he and his fellows choose to im- part to them. Living agency is behind their move- ments. The natural result is that, whenever he sees a phenomenon showing movement and energy outside his limited experience of mechanical causa- tion, he is led spontaneously to attribute it to some mysterious form of li\-ing agency. The thunder sug- gests the thunderer. The sun and moon are taken to be either living things or the instruments of an invisible li\'ing agency. Personality is also associated with them, particularly where the phenomena are suggestive oi intelligent purpose. To recognize in and behind the phenomena of nature the agency of mind and will was thus easy for primiti\e man. But H was not an equally simple matter to discern in the great diversity of these phenomena the action of but one supreme personality. The possibility of such an inference cannot be denied. But its hkelihood is not great when we consider how hard it would have been for primitive man in his inexperience to co-ordinate the varied effects of nature and derive them from one and the same source of power. The more hkely tendency would have been to recognize in the diverse phenomena the agency of distinct personalities, as was indeed done by the peoples of antiquity, and as is done to-day by uncultured peoples everjTvhere. Peoples, whose ignorance of the phy- sical laws of nature has not been compensated by revealed teaching, have invariably personalized the lorces of nature, and, feeling that their welfare de- pended on the beneficent exercise of these powers, have come to divinize them. From this danger of falling into a polytheistic interpretation of nature, primitive man was saved by Divine Revelation. Such, it would seem, was the simple philosophy forming the natural basis of religion in primitive times. It was theoretically capable of leading to a Monotheism Uke that of the ancient Hebrews, who viewed clouds, rain, lightning, and tempest as the signs of God's immediate activity. But, apart from revelation, it was very liable to degenerate into polytheistic nature-worship. Its defect was pri- marily scientific, ignorance of the secondar>- causes of natural events; but it rested on a sound principle, namely, that the phenomena cf nature are in some way the outcome of intelligent volition. This principle commends itself to the Christian philoso- pher and scientist.

C. Intuition Theory. — Other theories have been suggested to account for the origin of religion. We shall briefly review the more common ones. Accord- ing to the intuition theory, man has instinctively an intuition of God and of his dependence on Him. To this theory there are several serious objections. We ought to be conscious of this intuition if we possessed