“Whether there be something eternal behind this changing universe of things and persons, whether and in what sense there be a God or gods, and, if there be, of what sort is the divine nature and what is man’s relation to it is the fundamental problem of philosophy.”
During the winter of 1929-30 Charles Gore, the first Bishop of Birmingham, delivered twelve lectures before the University of St. Andrews on the foundation of Lord Gifford. These lectures form the twelve chapters of his book, “The Philosophy of the Good Life”. The book falls naturally into three parts, the first consists of a historical survey of the life and teachings of famous moral leaders of mankind, the second analyses the presuppositions both of the “idealist” and the more definitely “monotheist” presentations of the good life and the last shows the superior rationality of the “monotheist” presuppositions in their Christian form.
“The subject whether there be something eternal behind this changing universe of things and persons, whether and in what sense there be a God or gods, and, if there be, of what sort is the divine nature and what is man,s relation to it—is the fundamental problem of philosophy” (p. 3). This gives the meaning of philosophy’s quest, it is a search for God. And the philosopher is “a man whose spirit can find no rest unless he can gain and keep some ‘theory, or vision of the world of things and experiences, such as shall enable him to interpret its manifold phenomena as parts of one whole, and as expressive in some sort of one purpose, in which he himself is called to co-operate with will and intelligence.” (p. 3). The whole subject is definitely approached from the side of reason, not of revelation, although it is shown finally that the revelation is rational and reasonable.
The investigation is timely, for “the thought of the present age, if it is full of curiosity and of variety, is also full of confusion ; and the confusion is nowhere so noticeable as in respect of morality.” (p. 13). It is useless to point men and women to the Bible who have cast aside its moral standards as contrary to reason. “The study of the good life as it has been preached and lived requires also anxious search into the validity of its presuppositions.” (p. 15). The search will not be abstract or a priors but will be guided by the actual experience of mankind the moral consciousness of men as shown in history.
The first teacher of the moral life dealt with is Spitama Zarathustra whose genuine utterances are preserved in the Gathas, seventeen very ancient metrical hymns, found in the Zend Avesta, the sacred books of the Persians. He was
“a hero prophet of Eastern Iran, who became in later Persian legends a miraculous and divine being, but who is presented to us in these Gathas, in unmistakably historical fashion” (p.33).
After briefly tracing the traditional background, the teaching of Zarathustra is dealt with. He did not directly combat the polytheistic religion of his tribe, except on its moral side, but strove to reform
“by affirming and deepening the better elements in the tradition which the inner light showed him to be alone the truth, rather than by starting afresh, like Ikhnaten in Egypt, or Muhammad in Arabia, in direct hostility to the accepted religion.” (p. 39).
He taught a duality of primeval Spirits good and bad. He practically treats
“the good spirit Mazdah as the only Creator and supreme God ; thus the ultimate controlling will in the Universe is only good the forces of evil, higher and lower, are destined to utter defeat and woe.” (pp. 42-43).
He conceived of man as
“a being endowed with reason and freedom of will. His vocation is to correspond by a deliberate act of choice with the beneficent purpose of the good God, finding his happiness in dedicating all his faculties to his service; and in describing this service the phrase constantly recurs’in thought, and word and deed’.” (pp. 44-45).
It is interesting to note that he believed in the resurrection of the body, although his doctrine of the future life is by no means Biblical. The Gathas suffer in comparison with the Old Testament.
“There is little of the fascinating metaphor and splendid rhetoric which we find in the Hebrew prophets, no storytelling, no ritual, to attract and attach the people (p. 51)”.
“All the scholars are agreed that the light shed by Zoroaster (as he is often known) was swallowed up in darkness” (p. 53).
The next teacher of the good life is Buddha. The thinkers and teachers of India were mere dreamers of abstract notions rather than exponents of practical morality, yet their teachings on Karma and abstract thought, together with the powerful priesthood which has maintained religions alien to morality, have hindered the development in India of the conception of the good life for man. The doctrine of Buddha was highly intellectual and had no popular appeal. His mission lasted for some fifty years, till his death at the age of eighty (c. 250 B.C.). His great secret discovered only after prolonged meditation was that what causes rebirth is the existence of desire. Since to be continually reborn and pass through a succession of lives involved continual suffering and misery, the desire for a future life was as pernicious as what we should call wrong desires. The greatest desire was to be free from desire so that at death he would
“pass entirely away with that utter passing away in which nothing whatever is left behind.”
Virtue must be pursued and vice eradicated, from this selfish “motive” the escape from the chain of lives. Like the teaching of Zoroaster, Buddhism was quickly buried beneath elaborate ceremonial and all sorts of magic, so that very little likeness to its founder’s teaching can now be discovered.
Hinduism is next examined and shown to be a most unlikely source for any firmly conceived ideal of the good life. It is infinitely tolerant, divorced from morality, and often positively immoral.
Confucianism as taught by Mencius (died 289 B.C.) the follower of Confucius (died 479 B.C.) is the teaching of an incorrigible optimist human nature is naturally good, man’s duty to parents and the King is especially emphasized, “what you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others,” and so on. The system was almost purely secular and it is so closely bound up with a vanished regime that it will prove of little help to China now in the throes of reconstruction.
“We find in Japan an extraordinary confusion of religious and ethical theories. The traditional Shinto mythology appears to be quite meaningless but it is identified with patriotism and loyalty to the Emperor,” (p. 100). “Apart from its great tradition of patriotism no definite ethical standard or theory is to be found in Japan which can claim our consideration.” (p. 100). The Egyptian and Babylonian records which have come down to us are also deficient in ethical systems or clear ethical theory.
“We find a definite system of morals, with a definite conception of its divine sanction, arising in Arabia in the seventh century of our era under the teaching of Muhammad a way of life making a tremendous appeal, with startling strength behind it, which rapidly became one of the most important factors in the world,s history.” (p. 104).
“It is unnecessary to give the theology and morality of Islam any close examination for its founder Muhammad was deeply influenced in the beginning of his mission by what he had learned of Judaism and Christianity.” (p. 105).
Now Judaism as revealed in the Old Testament, and Christianity in the New, are so much superior to the teachings of the Quran that we must seek in Christianity at its best for the one specific religion and morality for the world, if such there be. Islam is a religion of specific commands, but it makes “no searching claim for a radical reformation of character.”
Herein is seen that its success is due to its limitation. Islam asks little and that well done, Christianity demands much which is often ill done or not attempted. A meritorious feature of Islam is that the principle of brotherhood is a reality and not lip-service as is so common amongst nominal Christians. Not that Islam teaches the principle more definitely and emphatically than Christianity. The words of Christ “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one toward another” (John 8, 35) abundantly proves this. It is the shame of a nominal Christianity that it has been scandalously exclusive and even hostile to the dark races, as witness the present position of negroes in the United States of America.
So far our search for the good life and the teachers of it has been confined to the East, we now turn to the contribution made by the West. This comes from one single region, Greece, and almost from one single man, Plato.
“The influence of Greece on the civilization of the world it is impossible to ignore and difficult to exaggerate, and in no department of civilization, except perhaps in that of art, has its influence been greater than in ethics, or the science of the conduct of life” (p. 110).
This influence owes nothing to the corrupt and debased legends of the gods, but everything to the labours of Socrates, and Plato after him, to establish morality for the individual and the state on a firm foundation of eternal principles. Dr. Gore gives many instances of the high moral level which Plato attained in his teaching, and these are probably the high water mark of the human intellect, apart from a divine revelation.
“In more places than one Plato tells us that the good life is the imitation of God, and that no being on earth is so like God as the just man” (p. 123).
Since no sanction for his teaching could be got from an appeal to the gods, Socrates had to appeal to reason. Virtue must be capable of a rational explanation. This is the meaning of the famous Socratic dictum that Virtue is knowledge. It means a trust in the ability of the soul to recognise truth for such when it sees it.
Plato was no ascetic or puritan ; all our life’s normal activities are good if rightly directed.
“The one thing needed is the control of the whole of life by the consecration of it to the true aim which is the good life lived in accordance with eternal principles or the following of God” (p. 126).
The foregoing, copiously supplied with extracts, will indicate something of the breadth and power of this book. We hope to conclude this review next month.
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)