[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] Sin,—Your able article on
the above in the Spectator of August 25th was most interesting as a clever criticism, but, noting the invariably unbiassed tone of your paper, I ask : Is it fair? You state that Mr. Spencer's "religious con- sciousness" is weak, as weak, in fact, as his scientific ' attain- ments are great. I venture to show that such an interpreta- tion of his views (vide "First Principles") appears somewhat stretched. Mr. Spencer states twice on one page "that the central position of religion is impregnable," he admits a "fundamental verity" in all religions, and—slightly away from the point—states that "Atheism, Pantheism, and) Theism are unthinkable." Mr. Spencer's " religious conscious- ness" seems so deep and on such a high plane that be declaims against the irreligion of maintaining the untenable doctrines that obscure the "Great Truth." And further, as to the "impiety of the pious ":--" Through the printed and spoken thoughts of religious teachers may almost everywhere be traced a professed familiarity with the ultimate mystery of things,—and which seems anything but congruous with the accompanying expressions of humility." As showing another standpoint of criticism, I venture to suggest that a perusal of the "great Spencer" is more likely to leave a conviction of greater religious consciousness than a lesser. Any one study. Mg your critique and not considering the above facts might infer the latter.—'I am, Sir, &c., Homewood, East Croydon. J. wasow-H.A.Przwp.E.N.
Previous page
