HUMAN BELIEFS 47 



duty of subordinating the personal to the general, the 

 present to the future, has ever been sought to be in- 

 culcated. On this point, as I am well aware, some 

 great thinkers of our race have taken the stand that 

 nothing can be profitably said, all religion being, as 

 they insist, incapable of proof. If by religion they 

 mean human theology, or man's necessarily fallible 

 attempts to reduce the infinite to precise intellectual 

 formulae of his own devising, their contention is meas- 

 urably granted. But religion does not mean that to 

 me. Other thinkers, again, affect to despise religion. 

 They would seem to be even more unwise. The 

 principle of selection never would have seized upon 

 religion, never would have developed it through all 

 these centuries, as it has done, unless religion had a 

 most important, a vital bearing on that principle. And 

 if I may be allowed to mildly make the suggestion, 

 the principle of selection is possibly a good deal more 

 worthy of regard when it comes to deal with the deep, 

 intricate subject of man's survival than any individual's 

 intellect no matter how profound. Of course, when I 

 say that the religions of mankind have sought to incul- 

 cate the supreme duty of subordinating self to the good 

 of the general, I mean the subordination of self with- 

 in reason. To be constantly preferring the good of 

 others to the exclusion of self in the daily struggle for 

 existence is manifestly an impossible absurdity. It 

 would put a stop to the play of self-interest, the most 

 powerful lever apparently that moves mankind. No 

 religion that I know of has ever demanded that we 



