Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 9.djvu/469

 PBAGM TISM. I,",.-, ' English ' with our ' Church and State ' traditions and customs and society] in part unintelligible and in part also shocking." And why not? we ask of Mr. Bradley. It is unintelligible because it is impossible, and it is certainly shocking in so far as it is highly sensational. It may be doubted if any man has ever been able to keep theoretical questions about God and religion utterly divorced from suppositions about the dynamic efficiency of these "entities" to him or to the human race. Indeed, with the anthro- pology and sociology of to-day matters of God and religion have become so much matters of statement or theory re- garding the necessities and actualities of moral and social development that it is almost time to revive some questions about their " structural " or " morphological " ' in addition to their merely functional significance. Mr. Bradley confesses that the idea that a man cannot treat of God and religion for theoretical purposes alone has a " personally deterrent " effect on his mind. That is, he will not treat of these things because he will not " set up as a teacher or preacher ". There are some of us upon whose minds the idea that God and religion could be under- stood theoretically (i.e., solely in a theoretical way) has had and still has a " personally deterrent " effect, and we can never hear of any one trying to " theorise " (i.e., in the merely abstract and conceptual sense) God and religion without a feeling of fatuity and aversion. Questions about the reality of God and religion like those about the existence of matter and force and substance and cause and atoms and cells and heredity and continuity and the social " tissue " and the social " organism " and the " one " and the " many " and heaven and hell and purgatory, for that part of it, and Kealism and Idealism and Classicism and Romanticism and Impressionism and Divine Justice and Divine Love and a great many other things, never do become clear and tangible and comprehensible until we see that they are largely ques- tions about the reality or the unreality of certain practical tendencies in human experience or in nature or in thought or in human history, etc., as the case may be, or in all of these together. Pragmatism, then, looked at broadly, is simply the expres- sion, in a phrase, of many important tendencies of the science and the criticism and the practice of our day. It requires however both the Criticism of the Categories and the Theory 'This seems to be attempted in the recent important rof. Tiele, " Elements of the Science of Religion," Giffnrd /- lectures by Prof.