JOHN DIGGINS
383
fa ith remains innocent o f it. The modern mind , wracked with doubt ,
pa ralyzes the will because it cannot res t content tha t it has arri ved a t
truth , pa rticul a rl y when it pa uses, J ames-like, a t a tenta ti ve belief
tha t has no content other tha n the utility of the belief itself. Faith
alone leaves ma n with no knowledge of hi s des ire for more
knowled ge - tha t res tless energy which occasions the progress of
reason and the disillusion o f mind .
Fa ith prepa res ma n fo r authority by precluding hi s capacity to
dispute it , and faith requires no t so much courage and will as a n
abso rbing sense of the sac red , divine, tra nscende nt - those qualities
whi ch , a s Robert Ni sbet has obse rved , endow ideas a nd images with
spiritual signifi cance a nd thereby remove them from the sphere of
pragma tic utility. Onl y fa ith could save the mind from des truction
by its own energies.
Today those energi es a re expressed in science a nd capita lism ,
the two histori cal forces tha t have brought about the "di senchant–
ment of the world ." Those fo rces ha ve made life a race between
enli ghtenment a nd des tructi on , a nd have le ft the world , as Adams
put it , "nervou s, queru lou s, unreasona ble, a nd a fra id. " How can
thi s process of disintegra tion be reversed so that energy might be
tra nsformed into knowl edge, force into law, a nd power into
authority? M a ny contempora ry socia l sc ie nti sts believe tha t a case
can be made fo r a u thority on the very pragma ti c grounds tha t
Adams res isted . Soc iety needs "law and order"; therefore a firm
sense of a uthority i usefu l to the survival o f the soc ial order.
Whether contempora ry a uthority is based on objec ti ve truths tha t
comma nd the mind's assent , or whether it is based on fa iths tha t can
withsta nd the assaults o f reason , seem bes ide the po int to
intell ectuals who bl ame the problem on o ther intell ec tu a ls. Adams
would be a troublema ker to modern soc ia l scie nti sts, for he
represents a Catholic mind a nd a n agnostic temperament.
In
Writers
and Politics
C onor Cruise O 'Brie n expla ins why :
To intellectuals brought up in Catho lic communities-whether
they acce pt or no t the teaching a nd sta nda rd s o f th ese communi –
ties -the truth o r fa lsehood o f a give n propos ition is fa r more
impo rtan t tha n its soc ia l impli cations. T hi s does no t mean there
is no t a great deal o f d ishonesty , both conscious a nd un consc ious,
among such intellectu a ls; there certa inly is; but, wha teve r the ir
persona l d ifficulties , they will think o f truth , no t utilit y, as the
esse ntia l criteri on of a ll propos itions.
