Religion

a) Definition and Division of Religion

Religion taken subjectively, i. e., as resident in the person (subject) possessing it, is a moral virtue which inclines the will to give to God the worship which is His due. Religion taken objectively, i. e., as a thing or object, is the sum-total of truths and laws which establish and regulate man’s duties to God. Thus we see that religion is divided into objective and subjective religion. Ethics is primarily concerned with objective religion. We have already offered our definition of objective religion, but we may add another accepted definition here, a definition that is perhaps more free and practical than the one given above. Religion is thus defined as “A system of truths, laws, and practices, which regulate divine worship.” We see that religion is directly concerned with duties that require the exercise of man’s noblest faculties, viz., his intellect and will. Man’s intellect must assent to the truths of religion: to some on account of their clear demonstrability; to others man must assent by faith which is grounded upon the solid basis of credibility. Man’s will must conform with laws which constitute an essential part of religion. Our little catechism is, in many respects, a very scientific book, and never more so than when it explains the purpose of man’s existence by outlining the essence of religion as the knowledge, love, and service of God in view of man’s last end, which is God and eternal happiness. Man, by his understanding or intellect, must know God and the things of God. By his will he must love that God which his intellect knows as allperfect and hence all-lovable. By all powers of mind and body, under control and command of the will, man must render to God an unfailing service. We have already distinguished religion as sub- jective and objective. Now we distinguish objective religion as natural and supernatural. Natural religion is the sum-total of religious truths and laws which are known, or can be known, by sound human reason, unaided by divine revelation. Supernatural religion, or revealed religion, is the sum-total of truths and laws divinely revealed to regulate man’s duties towards God. The two forms of religion are not separate, but supplementary; for revealed religion contains all natural religion and adds to it those truths and laws which man could not discover unaided, even though, after revelation has been made, man finds in such truths an utter reasonableness and a marvellous evidence of God’s goodness and providence for his salvation.

b) The Obligation of Religion

Man is bound to render to God the duty of religion. This truth is a certainty known by man’s natural power of reason. For, by the basic precept of justice, “Render to every one his due,” it is rationally certain that honor is owed to excellence, obedience is due to superiors, love is exacted by that which is good and lovable, gratitude is to be paid to benefactors. Now, God is perfect excellence; He is the supreme ruler of the universe; He is all-perfect and hence all-lovable; He is the giver of all good gifts. Therefore, the highest honor, obedience, love, and gratitude are owed to God. In other words, it is man’s duty to honor, obey, love, and thank God. But this is only saying that it is man’s duty to practise religion. Hence, man is bound to render to God the duty of religion. All men of all times have recognized the obligation of religion. And even where the religion was a false religion, even where its practices were barbarous, nay, monstrous, there was present to the minds and hearts of the devotees some notion of divinity, some dim groping after the truth about God. This is a fact of human history. Plutarch truly testifies: “No one ever saw a city without gods and templesand Cicero declares that “Nature herself teaches us that God is to be venerated; and there is no man free of the law which exacts this.” Some men have tried to find evidence for the existence of tribes and peoples who had no knowledge of divinity and were without the sense of obligation to practise religion. Their investigations have amply proved that no tribe ever existed without some knowledge of a higher being to whom the duty of religion is owed. Truly has Cicero said, “No race is so uncultured, no nation so inane, as to have minds unimbued with the notion of God.” Hence religion, regarded as a duty owed by man to God, is a primitive, universal, and constant fact in all human history. Now the unanimous agreement of all men of all times concerning a matter pertinent to* the rational conduct of life is a testimony to truth that cannot be denied. It is the very voice of nature, and if it be false, then there is no certitude achievable by the powers of nature—and there is an end of all human knowledge, of all science.

Man, then, would have no alternative but to lapse into the eternal silence of scepticism. Thus we conclude that man, by a clear requirement of his rational nature, is bound to render to God the duty of religion. Obviously, man is further bound to exercise his rational powers in the discovery of the true religion. It is not an act of reason to accept as religion any dim sentiment, any established practice, perhaps a barbaric practice, that expresses some sort of belief in some kind of divinity. But it is reasonable, and a thing required by reason, to discover the actual truths and laws which do, as a matter of fact, establish and regulate man’s duties to God. Not only must man render to God the duty of religion, but he must regard this duty in its true light as the most important affair of life. For man exists to achieve his last end, and religion is the duty which bears him directly to this achievement. Again, man exists as the creature of the all-perfect God, Who is not only his efficient cause, but his final cause: man depends wholly upon God, and exists only to give glory to God. Hence, the duty of religion, which means a practical grasp of the true state of affairs between man and God, is the essential duty of every human being. From the nature, obligation, and importance of religion certain corollaries follow, viz.: i. Religion is a duty to be rendered to God, a natural debt of our nature. It is not merely something to satisfy certain tender sensibilities of spirit; nor is it a mere matter of utility for man as contributing to his earthly peace, prosperity, and comfort. ii. Religion is founded in man’s rational nature, which is one and the same in all men; and hence religion is not a relative thing, to be varied for different men and different times; the individual requirements of religion are one and the same for all men of all times. iii. Religious indifferentism is intolerable to sound reason. Indifferentism is the doctrine which asserts that religion is a matter about which man need not be concerned. We hear this doctrine popularly expressed in such remarks, as, “All religions are equally good. Though they contradict one another, what of that ? They are all trying to make the world a better place to live in;” and, “Religions are only different roads to the same heaven; some take one, some another; but all tend to the same end.” Now, if a man were to adopt any such loose and contradictory theory about the mode of conducting business, his neighbors and fellows in trade would justifiably consider him mad. Suppose an office manager should say: “Well, we have many different systems of book-keeping here in our office; we get crossed up a great deal in our accounts, and have no end of trouble and argument; but what of that? All the clerks are working for the welfare of the house, and so all are working to the same good end!” There is no answer to that remark except to say that it is inexpressibly silly. But suppose the same man should explain further: “True, our systems are not all proper systems. Some of our clerks like to subtract, some like to add, some to multiply, and, I regret to say, some will be contented only with the more difficult problems of long division. But we do a great deal of figuring among us, one way or another, and so we’ll all be sure to come out right in the end.” Just such insanity as that is taught by the smug apostles of religious indifference. And more: to say that contradictions in religion do not matter, is to say that lies do not matter. To say that lies do not matter, is to say that it does not matter that God has lied in revealing contradictory religions, and that God is pleased with lies in tolerating such religions. There is no greater blasphemy than to say, “All religions are equally good.” That is only saying, “No religion amounts to much.” Sound reason faces a question of fact and of truth when it looks at life and wrestles with its meaning: it is merely asphyxiating reason and deadening thought to minimize the importance of religion or to make the choice of religion a matter of indifference to man. We have been talking of the theory of indifference. There are many men who practise indifference without theorizing about it. Such are those who simply neglect the duty of religion, and show by their lives that they consider it a matter of small moment, a pleasing sentiment perhaps, a thing to be thought of on rainy

Sundays now and then, but not an active issue of daily life. Both theoretical and practical indifference in religion is a horrible repudiation of man’s first and foremost duty; each is a prostitution of human life with its eternal purpose; each is an active and terrible blasphemy against God. We must not acquiesce in the lazy indifference of the man who says: “I do not harm anyone; I pay my debts; I live at peace with my neighbor; that’s religion enough for me.” We must answer „ such a man; we must shake him from his lethargy; we must say to him: “You do harm someone: you harm God in so far as you can by insulting and blaspheming Him; you harm your neighbor by bad example and by your silly theory of indifference which lulls him to sleep; you do not live at peace with your neighbor, you only laze about as he does; and if that’s religion enough for you, God help you!” Again, when we hear the cry that there are so many religions that one may not hope to find the true one, we must answer, “What if the finding of the truth does mean a search ? Are you not a man, with a manly eagerness to live your life worthily ? Make the search; find the truth! Would you stand perplexed and indifferent at the cross-roads when going to a certain definite town to do a piece of important business? I fancy not! You’d be active enough then! You’d get about and make inquiries; you’d find out for sure the road that would take you to your destination. Well, do that now!” And when we hear that persistent cry of indifference: “It’s all a matter of what a man is born to; I follow my father’s religion; it was good enough for him, it is good enough for me!”—we must have our answer ready. We may say: “I grant that early training gives a powerful direction to life; but when a man comes to the use of his own reason, he is bound to follow reason. Do you take your politics from the accident of birth? Do you take your historical and scientific knowledge from the accident of birth? If your father had a poor method . of business, would you follow it as good enough for you ?” Then, finally, comes the question, “Must every man analyze his own religion; must every man inquire into the truth of what he has learned to believe ?” The answer is: “No, if he is sure he is right. But if he has sound reason for doubting the truth of his religion, he must dispel that doubt and achieve certainty. And surely the religious indifferentist has every reason to doubt his position, for it is an utterly unreasonable one.” Indifferentism is the insane refuge of the person who has no time for God. It is very often the byproduct of a feverish pursuit of unworthy ideals. Hence it is rife among persons who live for business, for a career, for success, for their health’s sake (and there are thousands who do just that!), for bodily perfection, for social prominence, for pleasure, for comfort, or even for sin.

c) The Relation of Religion to Morality

There can be no morality without religion. Morality consists in the relation which exists between free human acts on the one hand, and the Eternal Law, Divine Reason, God Himself, on the other. Hence, morality itself is religious; its norm is the line within which man must keep to make his actions carry him towards his last end; and this last end is God. Now, if we take away God, the line or norm of human acts is removed. But to take away religion is to take away God; at least it is to remove God from definite relation to human acts, and that is the destruction of morality. Conversely, there can be no religion without morality. For if there is no morality, there is no right and wrong; if there is no right and wrong, there is no duty and no neglect or refusal of duty; if there is no duty, there is no duty of religion. Thus we see that religion and morality stand or fall together; they are perfectly and essentially correlated. Now, some philosophers have put forward the theory that there can be morality without God. They speak of this as independent morality or lay morality. But not only is independent morality impossible; it is a contradiction in terms and in fact, for it destroys morality while giving itself the name. For, as we have repeatedly seen, morality, or moral duty, arises from a bond which necessarily exists between human acts and the end which these are to achieve, viz., God. This bond is not made by man, but by God, who has estab- lished the necessary relations between human acts and the last end. Man’s reason avails him in the discovery of the last end and of the bond which holds him to its achievement; but human reason does not create either the end or the bond, nor can human reason change these. Hence, moral duty depends upon God and to speak of independent morality is to speak absurdly; it is like speaking of non-moral morality. And thus the theory of independent morality keeps the name of morality while it destroys the essence of morality. In one of Mr. H. G. Wells’ novels the somewhat inhuman hero puts forward the theory that there is no God, no hereafter, and hence no morality. Still, this interesting gentleman has a code of action. He declares that one must not be a cad. We presume, then, that one must be a gentleman. One must preserve the appearance of what is called ordinary decency. This, again, is independent morality. The answer to the rules of this code, viz., one must not be a cad, one must be a gentleman, one must be decent, etc., is simply, “Why ?” and “Who says so?” If there are human tendencies towards decency of conduct, there must be some measure which determines what decency is. In General Ethics (Chap. IV, Art. 2, a.) we saw that mere custom or human law cannot be such a measure. What is the measure ? It simply does not exist, once true morality has been ruled out of existence. And suppose one should accept the Wellsian ethic, what then? One might violate the code, one might be a cad; and what would come of it? Thus, we perceive that independent morality has no sanction for whatever baseless prescriptions it may make to rule men’s actions. Independent morality is impotent to enforce its code. Now, true morality, and true morality alone, has a sufficient and efficacious sanction, a sanction established by the all-knowing God who reads men’s minds and hearts as well as their exterior actions, a sanction sufficient to restrain cupidity and to sustain the afflicted, a sanction which consists in the eternal possession of the supreme good, or, alternatively, in its loss and eternal misery. Independent morality would upset the social order. Take God away, destroy objective morality, and what is left but self-seeking and egoism? In a self-seeking and egoistic society all bonds would be down, morality would be a mere name, society would become a warring mass of men acting upon the principle of “Every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost!” A wise philosopher has written, “Experience shows, history testifies, that, when God is removed (by denial, theoretical or practical), the family is destroyed, and the State falls in ruins because of crimes committed, particularly by youths.” In these days of unbelief—days of practical independent morality, which means no morality—we find that the family is indeed being destroyed by infidelity and by the prevalence of divorce, while the peace of civil society is upset by the activities of “gangsters and racketeers.” Our civil life is in a bad way “because of crimes committed,” and—how true and how sad the words!—“committed particularly by youths.”

Summary of the Article

In this Article we have defined religion in subjective and objective aspects, and have distinguished it as natural and as supernatural. We have learned that man is bound to render to God the duty of religion as his most important duty; and we have seen the scientific proof of this truth. Henceforth, then, we shall never be so unlearned as to make remarks such as, “Don’t bring religion into this question,” or, “Of course, I realize that your sentiment of religion in the matter is fine and delicate.” Since religion is man’s all-important duty, it is not to be excluded from any activity worthy of human attention or proper for human performance; nor is this outstanding duty a matter of sentiment only, even of delicate and fine sentiment : it is a matter of fact, a matter of truth, and is fraught with issues of everlasting import. Further, we have seen that the duty of religion is dictated by no mean utility or selfishness, but is a natural debt which rational man owes to God. We have seen that the duty of religion is ever one and the same for all men, and we have shown that those who shake off their responsibility in the matter with a shrug and a statement that “one religion is as good an another,” act in a manner wholly unreasonable, and are guilty of a terrible blasphemy. Finally, we have discussed, in this Article, the relation of religion and morality, and have seen that the so-called independent morality is absurd in theory and disastrous in practice.