RATIONALISM AND REASON
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—It is ill arguing with clergymen, as with anyone who has a fixed, unalterable point of view : also I feel it is cowardly to fight a man who, has one arm tied behind him. But do please let me tell the Dean of St. Paul's that the answer to his query, " What is Rationalism ? " can be found in the very example that he quotes as a " negation of the whole Rationalist programme."
He jeers at the statement that : " the propositions God exists and God does not exist arc both alike assertions devoid of significance."
Yet if he had tested them by the published aim of ration- alists (which he also quotes) he would have found that, as neither assertion is "' verifiable by experience " and can only be accepted as the result of arbitrary assumption, neither can have any significance for any rationalist.
The Dean may reply that the existence of God is verified by his experience. That will not do. It is general experience that must support propositions acceptable to rationalists. A hundred people might say they had experienced God, but not two of them would agree in defining Him. Experience must register on the intellect, not the imagination.
Deans of St. Paul's have lately shown an unhappy tendency to mix what they call, I suppose, broadmindedness with a total inability (or refusal) to see the other fellow's point of view. Dr. Matthews may think it would be amusing to ask rationalists what they mean by " reason " ; that would not be nearly so funny as asking Deans to tell us what they
mean by "faith."—Yours, &c., HAMILTON FY E.
Previous page
