Page:The Spirit of Russia by T G Masaryk, volume 2.pdf/504

478 in this matter a bad example was set them by western philosophers, not excepting Kant himself. For Kant declared that he had formulated his criticism in the desire to find his way back to faith. This was one of the numerous examples of Kant's inconsistency. As we have seen, Lavrov followed the bad example when he attempted to elucidate the relationships between faith and criticism solely on the ethical plane, instead of considering the matter above all in the light of the theory of cognition.

Epistemologically, Goethe is right when he insists, as he does more than once, that no one can return to faith, but only to conviction. His meaning is that faith (credulity) constitutes the essence of myth. That which theologians ever extol and demand as child-like faith is nothing but the blind belief, the confident credulity, of the uncritical human being. One who has understood Hume's scepticism and Kant’s criticism can no longer "believe"; he must know, must seek and find conviction.

Once for all, Hume and Kant destroyed the myths upon which childlike faith can alone be established, and all attempts to reconcile scientific philosophy with theology have since their day been of necessity fallacious and fugitive. This applies equally to the so-called liberal and mediatorial theology, and to the attempts made by those modern seekers after God who in the end effect nothing but a compromise with the church. In this connection the most recent Russian philosophy is perhaps less dangerous than the corresponding philosophy of the west, for in Russia such Jesuitism is less extensively buttressed by theological and philosophical learning.

Criticism has rendered impossible the cry, "Retrace your steps!" The only way to formulate the problem is to ask, how religion is possible for the critical and scientific thinker, and if possible, what religion (cf. § 41 ).

2. Mythical thought conceives religion in purely objectivist fashion, having faith in an alleged revelation. Russian philosophy is still so mythical and objectivist that even the opponents of ecclesiastical religion are nothing but objectivists. Tolstoi is typical in this respect. Despite his rationalism, he passively accepts the New Testament as an absolute revelation, his criticism of the record being confined to the crudest and most naive of the myths it contains. Such epistemological passivism is eminently characteristic of Russian thought.