SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
A
DOUBTER'S DOUBTS about science and religion
CHAPTER EIGHT
"AN AGNOSTIC'S APOLOGY"
"THE natural attitude of a thinking mind toward the
supernatural is that of scepticism." Scepticism, not agnosticism. The sceptic
halts at the cross-roads to take his bearings; but at sight of a cross-road the
agnostic gives up his journey altogether. True scepticism connotes intellectual
caution, but agnosticism is intellectual suicide.
Not so, it will be said,
for agnosticism merely betokens the prudence that refuses to proceed if no
plain signpost marks the way. But in this life it is not by plain signposts
that we have to direct our steps. The meaning of a word moreover must be
settled by use, and not by etymology; and this word was coined to express
something quite different from scepticism. It is the watchword of a special
school. And no one will dispute that the late Sir Leslie Stephen may be
accepted as an authoritative exponent of the teaching of that school. Let us
then turn to his treatise entitled An Agnostic's Apology.
A book
about dress would not offend us by ridiculing and denouncing our conventional
clothing as uncomfortable, unhealthy, and inartistic. But if the writer went on
to urge that we should discard all covering, and go about in our native
nakedness, his lucubrations would only excite amusement or disgust. And no one
who sympathises with the main argument of the preceding chapters would find
much fault with Leslie Stephen's treatise if it were merely an exposure of the
superstitions and errors and follies that have corrupted "the Christian
religion" and discredited theological controversy. But when he goes on to
preach agnosticism as a positive "faith," and to formulate it as an ideal
"creed," he stands upon the same level as the preacher of nakedness.
His
Apology opens with a definition of agnosticism. "That there are limits to the
sphere of human intelligence," no one of course denies. But the agnostic
further asserts "that, those limits are such as to exclude at least what Lewes
called 'metempirical' knowledge," and "that theology lies within this forbidden
sphere." And the meaning of this is emphasised by his statement of the
alternative position-a position which he rejects with scorn-" that our reason
can in some sense transcend the narrow limits of experience."
Now there is
a grotesquely transparent fallacy in this; and I will illustrate it by a
grotesquely childish parable. As regards what is happening next door at this
moment my condition is that of bland agnosticism. My reason can tell me
nothing, and happily the partition wall is thick enough to prevent my senses
from enlightening me. But if my neighbour comes in to see me, my ignorance may
be at once dispelled, and my reason "transcends the narrow limits of my
experience." And so here. Everybody admits that in the spiritual sphere reason
can tell us nothing. Therefore, our author insists, we are of necessity
agnostics.
Not so, the Christian replies, for God has given us a
revelation. The agnostic's rejoinder will be to reject my implied definition of
"experience," and to deny the possibility of a revelation. And if he were an
atheist his denial would be reasonable and consistent. But Leslie Stephen's
repudiation of atheism undermines his whole position. To acknowledge the
existence of a God whose creatures we are, and at the same time to deny on a
priori grounds that He can reveal Himself to men - this savours of neither
logic nor philosophy.
If some one came to my house purporting to be the
bearer of a letter from my brother, the fact of my having no brother would be a
sufficient reason for refusing to receive him. But if I had a brother I should
be bound to admit the visitor and read the letter. My having a brother would
not prove the genuineness of the letter, but it would make it incumbent on me
to examine it. And while the fact that there is a God does not establish the
truth of Christianity, it creates an obligation to investigate its truth. But
the agnostic shuts the door against all inquiry. His agnosticism is positive
and dogmatic. It is based on a deliberate refusal to consider the matter at
all.
This being so his Apology is merely a paean in praise of ignorance,
and a sustained appeal to prejudice. And he makes free use of the well-known
nisi prius trick of diverting attention from the real issue by heaping
ridicule upon his opponents. His dialectical juggling about the freewill
controversy is a notable instance of this. For as he does not pretend to deny
that will is free, his fireworks, effective though they be, all end in smoke. A
like remark applies to his discussion about virtue and vice. And his reference
to Cardinal Newman is a still more flagrant example of his method. For if
Newman is responsible for the statement that "the Catholic Church affords the
only refuge from the alternatives of atheism or agnosticism," it merely
exemplifies the fact that very great men say very foolish things. In view of
the faith of the Jew, and the facts of Judaism, such a dictum is quite as silly
as it is false.
But even if, for the sake of argument, we should admit
everything by which this apostle of agnosticism attempts to establish his
opening theses, the great problem which he ignores would remain, like some
giant tree round which a brushwood fire has spent itself. For the real question
at issue is not whether, as he seems to think, theologians are fools, nor even
whether Christianity is true, but whether a Divine revelation is possible. And
by his refusal on a priori grounds to accord to Christianity a hearing, he puts
himself out of court altogether. His position is not that of enlightened and
honest scepticism; it is the blind and stupid infidelity of Hume. It is the
expression, not of an intelligent doubt whether "God hath spoken unto us by his
Son," but of an unintelligent denial that God could speak to men in any way. It
is a deliberate and systematic refusal to know anything beyond what unaided
reason and the senses can discover. His agnosticism is - to adopt his own
description of it - a "creed" ; and were we to emulate his method, it might be
contemptuously designated a creed of mathematics and mud.
As a philippic
against Christianity, An Agnostic's Apology is all the more effective
because its profanities, like its fallacies, are skilfully veiled. And yet the
tone of it is deplorable. In England at least, cultured infidels are used to
speak of Christianity with respect, remembering that it is the faith of the
apostles and the martyrs - the faith, moreover, professed today by the great
majority of men who hold the highest rank in the aristocracy of learning. But a
very different spirit marks this treatise. In the writer's estimation the great
doctrines of that faith are but "old husks," and the profession of them is only
"bluster." And he challenges the Christian to " point to some Christian truth,
however trifling," that "will stand the test of discussion and verification."
That challenge the Christian can accept without misgiving or reserve. And
the doctrine on which he will stake the issue is not a "trifling" one, but the
great foundation truth of the Resurrection.
In writing to the Christians of
Corinth, the Apostle restates the Gospel which had won them from Paganism. And
the burden of it is the Saviour's death and resurrection. "That Christ died for
our sins" is a truth which, in the nature of things, admits of no appeal to
human testimony. But though the Resurrection is equally the subject of positive
revelation, the Apostle goes on to enumerate witnesses of it, whose evidence
would be accepted as valid by any fair tribunal in the world. Once and again
all the Apostles saw their Lord alive on earth after His crucifixion. And on
one occasion He was seen by a company of more than five hundred disciples, most
of whom were still living when the Apostle wrote.
The Rationalists suggest
that belief in the Resurrection was the growth of time, "when a haze of
sentiment and mysticism had gathered around the traditions of Calvary." But
this figment is exploded by the simple fact that the interval was measured by
days and not by years. The disciples, moreover, were quite as sceptical as even
these "superior persons" would themselves have been. One of the eleven
Apostles, indeed, refused to believe the united testimony of his brethren, and
for a whole week adhered to the theory that they had seen a ghost. But the
Lord's appearances were not like fleeting visions of an "astral body" in a
darkened room. He met the disciples just as He had been used to do in the past.
He walked with them on the public ways. He sat down to eat with them. And more
than all this, He resumed His ministry among them, renewing in detail His
teaching about Holy Scripture, and confirming their faith by a fuller and
clearer exegesis than they had till then been able to receive.
Such was
their explicit testimony. And in view of it the Rationalist gloss is utterly
absurd. It is sheer nonsense to talk of a haze of sentiment, or of Oriental
superstition, or of over-strained nerves. If the Resurrection was not a
reality, the Apostles, one and all, were guilty of a base conspiracy of fraud
and falsehood. Credulous fools they certainly were not, but profane impostors
and champion liars - no terms of reprobation and contempt would be too strong
to heap on them. And this is what unbelief implies, for in no other way can
their testimony to the Resurrection be evaded.
And in addition to this
direct evidence, there is abundant evidence of another kind. At the betrayal
all the disciples were scattered and went into hiding. But at Pentecost these
same men came forward boldly, and preached to the Jews assembled in Jerusalem
for the festival. And Peter, who had not only forsaken Him, but repeatedly
denied with oaths that he ever knew Him, was foremost in denouncing the denial
of Him by the nation. Something must have happened to account for a
transformation so extraordinary. And what was it? Only one answer is possible
-The Resurrection.
But further. While the three years' ministry of Christ
and His Apostles produced only about a hundred and twenty disciples in the city
of Jerusalem, this Pentecostal testimony brought in three thousand converts.
Nor was this the mere flash of a transient success. Soon afterwards the company
of the disciples was more than trebled. For we read "the number of the men came
to be about five thousand," and we may assume that the women converts were at
least as numerous. A little later again, we are told, they were further joined
by "multitudes both of men and women." And later still, the narrative records,
"the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great
company of the priests were obedient to the faith." All this, moreover,
occurred at a time when the opposition of the Sanhedrim and the priests was
fiercer and more organised even than before the crucifixion. How then can it be
explained? Only one answer is possible - The Resurrection.
But even this is
not all. We have other indirect evidence, still more striking and conclusive.
To suppose that the Christianity of the Pentecostal Church was "a new religion"
is an ignorant blunder. The disciples preached to none but Jews; all the
converts without exception were Jews ; and by the religious leaders of .the
nation they were regarded as an heretical Jewish sect. When the Apostle Paul
was put on his defence before Felix, the charge against him was not apostasy
but heresy. He was a "leader of the sect of the Nazarenes." And what was his
answer to that charge? "According to the Way (which they call a sect) so
worship I the God of our fathers, believing all things which are written in the
law and in the prophets. His position, he thus maintained in the most explicit
terms, was that of the orthodox Jew.
Now there was no ordinance to which
the Jews adhered more rigidly than that of the Sabbath. How was it then that
with one consent they began to observe the first day of the week? The sceptic
may hint at parallels for their success in proselytising, but here is a fact
that cannot be thus dismissed. Something of an extraordinary kind must have
happened to account for it. What was it then? Only one answer is possible- The
Resurrection.
I am not ignorant of the methods by which infidelity has
sought to account for the empty tomb. The lie of the Jewish priests - that the
disciples stole the body - is too gross for modern rationalism; and as an
alternative explanation, we are told that Christ had not really died! And Dr.
Harnack, the greatest of living rationalists, disposes of the matter by
treating the Resurrection as a mere "belief." " It is not our business," he
says, "to defend either the view which was taken of the death, or the idea that
He had risen again." And he adds: "Whatever may have happened at the grave and
in the matter of the appearances, one thing is certain: this grave was the
birthplace of the indestructible belief that death is vanquished, that there is
a life eternal." And again: "The conviction that obtained in the apostolic age
that the Lord had really appeared after His death on the cross may be regarded
as a coefficient." It is not that the fact of the appearances was "a
coefficient," but merely the belief that there were appearances. For his
meaning is made clear by his going on to refer to the "coefficient" of a
mistaken expectation of Christ's return. There are no facts of any kind in this
scheme, but merely "beliefs" and "views" and "ideas." And this being so it
involves the absolute rejection of the Gospel narrative, and therefore it
destroys the only ground on which discussion is possible.
Here then is our
answer to the agnostic's challenge. There are circumstances in which it is idle
to speak of spiritual truth; but the resurrection of Christ is a public fact
accredited by evidence which will "stand the test of discussion and
verification." And when the agnostic denies that Christianity can supply an
answer to as much as one of "the hideous doubts that oppress us," the Christian
points to that Resurrection as dispelling the most grievous of all the doubts
that darken life on earth. For the resurrection of Christ is the earnest and
pledge of the resurrection of His people. Such then is the Christian's hope. "A
sure and certain hope" he rightly calls it; nor will he be deterred by the
agnostic's denunciation of the words as "a cutting piece of satire."
Notwithstanding petulant disavowals of atheism, the real issue here involved is
not the fact of a revelation, but the existence of God- a real God, not "the
primordial germ," nor even the Director-General of evolutionary processes, but
"the living and true God" From all who acknowledge such a God we are entitled
to demand an answer to the Apostle's challenge when he stood before Agrippa:
"Why should it be thought incredible with you that God should raise the dead? "
And this suggests a closing word. Leslie Stephen avers with truth that the
"enormous majority of the race has been plunged in superstitions of various
kinds." But the philosophers always omit to tell us how this universal craving
for a religion can be accounted for. And while they are vainly seeking for the
solution of the enigma in the monkey house of the Zoological Gardens, sane and
sensible folk who make no pretensions to be philosophers will continue to find
it in the Genesis story of the Creation and Fall.
(Footnote - No one
surely will suppose that the foregoing is a full statement of the evidence for
the Resurrection. To compress such a statement into such a compass would be a
feat unparalleled in Apologetics. But even this partial and most inadequate
statement is amply sufficient as an answer to Leslie Stephen's challenge. What
has here been urged in proof of the Resurrection is proof that it was neither a
delusion nor a fraud. For the moral and spiritual elements involved are more
signifi-cant even than the physiological. I might further appeal to the baptism
of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, the visible proofs of which are vouched for by
the men who ex-perienced it. And I might appeal to the Ascension and, in
connection with it, to the Transfiguration, which, I may remark, the Apostle
Peter records as matter of evidence (2 Peter i. 15-19).)
Chapter Nine
Literature | Photos | Links | Home