112
PARTISAN REVIEW
way. The connection of most literary theorists and, for that matter,
of most current eager-beavers among myth-writers and readers,
is
that of belated fleas to a dog. That, however, is unimportant; for
"myth" seems the best available bridge, towards literary and aesthe–
tic and several other deeper benefits of religion, for the sensitive
science-minded agnostic.
5. Whether or not the separation is possible, a lot of people are
making it. Here I can only be subjective. I veer between belief in God,
non-belief, .and a kind of neutrality. In all three frames of mind I
keep what I believe is meant by the religious consciousness. In the
non-religious frame of mind it is of course important for me to
believe that "God" has nothing to do with it- that "man and
human life" (and I would emphatically add, one's small further
knowledge and mere sense, or effort to conceive of what existence
is)
are more than sufficient to inspire those feelings of awe, reverence,
compassion, moral urgency and enigma, etc., which are certainly
among the more vital human values and which combine to make
up the religious consciousness spoken of. But in my own amorphous
case I must suspect that this consciousness
is
enhanced (perhaps
created) by unconscious undertones of belief and semi-belief in God.
Of people more firm-minded I cannot judge. I suspect of them, as
of my non-religious frame of mind, a sense of God in their "religious
subconscious," but I would never presume to be sure of that. Cer–
tainly this seems the best compromise available, for the religiously
sensitive man who cannot believe in the supernatural;
quite
con–
ceivably, it might develop into a kind of quasi-religious movement,
best amenable to many in this time.
Some implications behind the questions seem to me as interest–
ing to discuss as the questions themselves.
If
my inferences are correct, the editors seem to suppose that
the validity or invalidity of this so-called revival depends on its
"historical" propriety or inevitability; on whether religion can prove
itself culturally (or socially, or politically) useful (usable); on how
many intellectuals become converted; and on whether or not their
conversion is valid (as checked by rational means); and that except
through some kind of failure of nerve (which would render the
conversion invalid ), no intellectual could become religious except by
rational means.
