LETTERS
205
of that?
If,
as Sidney Hook says, "at–
tempts to grapple with these problems
. . . in a rational and scientific spirit
have run squarely against class interests
and privileges which cut savagely short
any inquiry into their justification,"
could it be that the preliminary reasoning
had been defective in its estimate of
such facts? Can
all
that
h~s
been found
somewhat intractable to scientific method
be described as "class interests and priv–
ileges"?
2. Is it a "sign of intellectual panic,"
in Sidney Hook's phrase, to raise such
questions as these? Is it good reasoning,
or scrupulous with respect to .fact, to
identify thos!l who do raise them with
those many who are indeed likely to lose
their wits in a dangerous time?
3.
Has "the recrudescence of beliefs in
the original depravity of human nature,"
mentioned by Sidney Hook, actually been
as noticeable as the correction of beliefs
in the spet!dy perfectability of human
nature? And for this correction has not
a certain body of scientific evidence been
amassed? .•.
Yours,
ROBERT FITZGERALD
NEw
YoRK
CITY
3
Sire:
Henry Adams said that "the mind
resorts to reason for want of training,"
and I find this curiously appropriate as
applied to the articles by Sidney Hook,
John Dewey and Ernest Nagel, in your
current issue-curiously appropriate be–
cause one hardly expects trained intelli–
gence to miss so completely the point of
the religious idea. Religion is a way of
thought, a way of life, personal and sub–
jective, and not to be measured by
"something whose existence we do not
inwardly possess, but only point at out–
wardly." Why don't these gentlemen re–
read William James, "Varieties of Reli–
gions Experience," especially the chapter
called "Conclusions"?
If
they have ad–
l811ced since James' day and are able to
contradict him, their objections and ac–
cusations should be more pertinent–
many of the latter now seem obsolete.
What is it that Mr. Dewey means when
he says, "... the bloodiest and most
cruel wars in h..tman history were waged
in the name of and with the explicit
sanction of
super-naturalism"~r
Mr.
Hook when he says, "Religious groups
are seeking, as they always have, to make
of God an instrument of national policy"?
Are they not confusing religion, which
is personal, with a behavior all too com–
mon to man in his social or collective
activities? His belief in a church is one
thing, his experience of God is another,
and it would be well for their purpose
of attack to make clear which of the two
is meant. In a sense all concepts may be
inter-related, but social, national or poli–
tical ideas have less to do with religion
than grammar has to do with poetry.
It is all very like denying the existence
of love because someone's marriage has
failed....
I repeat, religion is a way of life; a
method of thinking; it is not dogma or
theory; it is a realization-a more or
less degree of mystical experienc&-and
it is as much a function of the human
mind and a capacity of man's as music
is, or love. You cannot negate experience
by scientific reasoning.
If
anyone thinks
that a rope is a snake it is impossible
to prove by logic that it is not; only
by experiment can the truth be learned.
So the sole test for experience is the
effect it has, for better or worse, on a
man's whole life.
Very truly yours,
E.
s.
SPACKMAN
NEw
YoRK
CITY
4
Sirs:
What a depressing exhibition were the
three articles on "The New Failure of
Nerve" by Mssrs. Dewey, Nagle, and
Hook; depressing because they demon–
strate so eloquently the futility of mere
argument in settling the deep-seated is–
sues that circumstances have forced us
to reanalyse after so long a philosophical
slumber. These "naturalists" can't really
be argued with, because at bottom they
have not given themselves completely to
the search for what is good for
man
alone.
The regimen of an experimental science
