256
PAR:rISAN REVIEW
which our relation to the ground and meaning of existence is ex–
pressed. Being religious
is
being ultimately concerned-and this the
intellectual of our days is, even
if
he expresses his ultimate concern
in
negative terms. Religion is
not
a collection of theoretical state–
ments of a questionable or absurd or superstitious character. Such
a religion could not be accepted by any intellectual who
is
not willing
to sacrifice his intellectual honesty. Some of them make this sacrifice
and surrender their intellectual autonomy to Ecclesiastical or Biblical
authorities. But their turn to religion is still an expression of their
despair, not a victory over it. Others are waiting for a religious an–
swer which does not destroy reason but points to the depth of reason;
which does not .teach the supernatural, but points to the mystery in
the ground of the natural, which denies that God
is
a being and
speaks of Him as the ground and depth of being and meaning, which
knows about the significance of symbols in myth and cult, but resists
the distortion of symbols into statements of knowledge which
necessarily conflict with scientific knowledge. A theology which
takes this position, which preserves the intellectual honesty _of the
intellectual and expresses, at the same time, the answers to the ques–
tions implied in man's existence and existence generally-such a
theology is acceptable to the intelligentsia (and to many non-intel–
lectuals as well). It prevents the turn of the intellectuals toward
religion from becoming a matter of romantic concessions or of self–
surrender to authority.
(The third and last installment of the symposium on Religion and
the Intellectuals will appear in the April issue.)
