44 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



ship, ghost worship to which . . . we may succeed in reducing 

 religious phenomena?" Here is the very question which Mr. 

 Kidd says modern science does not face. "What is Mr. Ellis's an- 

 swer ? " The supreme expression of the religious consciousness lies 

 always in an intuition of union with the world, under whatever 

 abstract or concrete names the infinite not-self may be hidden. 

 ... It comes in the guise of a purification of egoism, a complete 

 renunciation of the limits of individuality of all the desires and 

 aims that seem to converge in the single personality and a joy- 

 ous acceptance of what has generally seemed an immense external 

 Will now first dimly or clearly realized. ... It is this intuition 

 which is the ' emptiness ' of Lao-tsze, the freedom from all aims 

 that center in self." When one has been reading things of this 

 kind from day to day for years, it is a little provocative of 

 fatigue to find Mr. Kidd attaching so much importance to formu- 

 las of his own devising that are essentially of the same signifi- 

 cance. 



But possibly Mr. Kidd, it may be suggested, states the func- 

 tion of religious beliefs much more definitely than has ever been 

 done before, and throws new and vivid light upon their origin 

 and rationale. We can not see that there is the least foundation 

 for such a claim. We are told by this author that religion is 

 essentially an " ultra-rational sanction " for actions which, though 

 injurious to the individual, are beneficial to the community. Is 

 any light whatever thrown on the nature of religion by calling it 

 an " ultra-rational sanction " ? The term " ultra-rational " is es- 

 sentially negative. We understand from it that religion is a sanc- 

 tion with which reason has nothing to do. What we want to know 

 is, What has to do with it ? Whence is its authority derived ? 

 How far are rational beings bound or compelled to recognize and 

 bow to it ? Is it something like the law of gravitation that no 

 one can resist, or is it a mere habit of mind that can be out- 

 grown, perverted, or destroyed ? If all that Mr. Kidd has to tell 

 us of the nature of religion is that it is a sanction, and that rea- 

 son has nothing to do with it, or rather that it is contrary to 

 reason, we certainly have not much to thank him for. Far more 

 are our thanks due to Hegel and Feuerbach and Comte, to Spencer 

 and Martineau and Arnold, to Muller and Reville and Caird, who 

 all, from their several points of view, have endeavored to explain 

 what religion is and to define its place in the sum of human 

 powers and faculties. The time is not far distant, Mr. Kidd says, 

 when Science will " look back with shamefacedness to the atti- 

 tude in which she has addressed herself to one of the highest 

 problems in history"; but we fail to see either what Science 

 has to be shamefaced about, or what Mr. Kidd has himself done 

 to mark out better lines for the action of Science in the future. 



