orthodoxy- 第41部分

as　a　disorderly　thing。　　But　my　own　positive　conviction　that　personal



creation　is　more　conceivable　than　material　fate；　is；　I　admit；



in　a　sense；　undiscussable。　　I　will　not　call　it　a　faith　or　an　intuition；



for　those　words　are　mixed　up　with　mere　emotion；　it　is　strictly



an　intellectual　conviction；　but　it　is　a　PRIMARY　intellectual



conviction　like　the　certainty　of　self　of　the　good　of　living。　



Any　one　who　likes；　therefore；　may　call　my　belief　in　God　merely　mystical；



the　phrase　is　not　worth　fighting　about。　　But　my　belief　that　miracles



have　happened　in　human　history　is　not　a　mystical　belief　at　all；　I　believe



in　them　upon　human　evidences　as　I　do　in　the　discovery　of　America。　



Upon　this　point　there　is　a　simple　logical　fact　that　only　requires



to　be　stated　and　cleared　up。　　Somehow　or　other　an　extraordinary



idea　has　arisen　that　the　disbelievers　in　miracles　consider　them



coldly　and　fairly；　while　believers　in　miracles　accept　them　only



in　connection　with　some　dogma。　　The　fact　is　quite　the　other　way。　



The　believers　in　miracles　accept　them　（rightly　or　wrongly）　because　they



have　evidence　for　them。　　The　disbelievers　in　miracles　deny　them



（rightly　or　wrongly）　because　they　have　a　doctrine　against　them。　



The　open；　obvious；　democratic　thing　is　to　believe　an　old　apple…woman



when　she　bears　testimony　to　a　miracle；　just　as　you　believe　an　old



apple…woman　when　she　bears　testimony　to　a　murder。　　The　plain；



popular　course　is　to　trust　the　peasant's　word　about　the　ghost



exactly　as　far　as　you　trust　the　peasant's　word　about　the　landlord。　



Being　a　peasant　he　will　probably　have　a　great　deal　of　healthy



agnosticism　about　both。　　Still　you　could　fill　the　British　Museum　with



evidence　uttered　by　the　peasant；　and　given　in　favour　of　the　ghost。　



If　it　comes　to　human　testimony　there　is　a　choking　cataract　of　human



testimony　in　favour　of　the　supernatural。　　If　you　reject　it；　you　can



only　mean　one　of　two　things。　　You　reject　the　peasant's　story　about



the　ghost　either　because　the　man　is　a　peasant　or　because　the　story



is　a　ghost　story。　　That　is；　you　either　deny　the　main　principle



of　democracy；　or　you　affirm　the　main　principle　of　materialism



the　abstract　impossibility　of　miracle。　　You　have　a　perfect　right



to　do　so；　but　in　that　case　you　are　the　dogmatist。　　It　is　we



Christians　who　accept　all　actual　evidenceit　is　you　rationalists



who　refuse　actual　evidence　being　constrained　to　do　so　by　your　creed。　



But　I　am　not　constrained　by　any　creed　in　the　matter；　and　looking



impartially　into　certain　miracles　of　mediaeval　and　modern　times；



I　have　come　to　the　conclusion　that　they　occurred。　　All　argument



against　these　plain　facts　is　always　argument　in　a　circle。　　If　I　say；



〃Mediaeval　documents　attest　certain　miracles　as　much　as　they　attest



certain　battles；〃　they　answer；　〃But　mediaevals　were　superstitious〃；



if　I　want　to　know　in　what　they　were　superstitious；　the　only



ultimate　answer　is　that　they　believed　in　the　miracles。　　If　I　say　〃a



peasant　saw　a　ghost；〃　I　am　told；　〃But　peasants　are　so　credulous。〃　



If　I　ask；　〃Why　credulous？〃　the　only　answer　isthat　they　see　ghosts。　



Iceland　is　impossible　because　only　stupid　sailors　have　seen　it；



and　the　sailors　are　only　stupid　because　they　say　they　have　seen　Iceland。　



It　is　only　fair　to　add　that　there　is　another　argument　that　the



unbeliever　may　rationally　use　against　miracles；　though　he　himself



generally　forgets　to　use　it。







　　　　　He　may　say　that　there　has　been　in　many　miraculous　stories



a　notion　of　spiritual　preparation　and　acceptance：　　in　short；



that　the　miracle　could　only　come　to　him　who　believed　in　it。　



It　may　be　so；　and　if　it　is　so　how　are　we　to　test　it？　　If　we　are



inquiring　whether　certain　results　follow　faith；　it　is　useless



to　repeat　wearily　that　（if　they　happen）　they　do　follow　faith。　



If　faith　is　one　of　the　conditions；　those　without　faith　have　a



most　healthy　right　to　laugh。　　But　they　have　no　right　to　judge。　



Being　a　believer　may　be；　if　you　like；　as　bad　as　being　drunk；



still　if　we　were　extracting　psychological　facts　from　drunkards；



it　would　be　absurd　to　be　always　taunting　them　with　having　been　drunk。　



Suppose　we　were　investigating　whether　angry　men　really　saw　a　red



mist　before　their　eyes。　　Suppose　sixty　excellent　householders　swore



that　when　angry　they　had　seen　this　crimson　cloud：　　surely　it　would



be　absurd　to　answer　〃Oh；　but　you　admit　you　were　angry　at　the　time。〃　



They　might　reasonably　rejoin　（in　a　stentorian　chorus）；　〃How　the　blazes



could　we　discover；　without　being　angry；　whether　angry　people　see　red？〃　



So　the　saints　and　ascetics　might　rationally　reply；　〃Suppose　that　the



question　is　whether　believers　can　see　visionseven　then；　if　you



are　interested　in　visions　it　is　no　point　to　object　to　believers。〃　



You　are　still　arguing　in　a　circlein　that　old　mad　circle　with　which　this



book　began。







　　　　　The　question　of　whether　miracles　ever　occur　is　a　question　of



common　sense　and　of　ordinary　historical　imagination：　　not　of　any　final



physical　experiment。　　One　may　here　surely　dismiss　that　quite　brainless



piece　of　pedantry　which　talks　about　the　need　for　〃scientific　conditions〃



in　connection　with　alleged　spiritual　phenomena。　　If　we　are　asking



whether　a　dead　soul　can　communicate　with　a　living　it　is　ludicrous



to　insist　that　it　shall　be　under　conditions　in　which　no　two　living



souls　in　their　senses　would　seriously　communicate　with　each　other。　



The　fact　that　ghosts　prefer　darkness　no　more　disproves　the　existence



of　ghosts　than　the　fact　that　lovers　prefer　darkness　disproves　the



existence　of　love。　　If　you　choose　to　say；　〃I　will　believe　that　Miss



Brown　called　her　fiance　a　periwinkle　or；　any　other　endearing　term；



if　she　will　repeat　the　word　before　seventeen　psychologists；〃



then　I　shall　reply；　〃Very　well；　if　those　are　your　conditions；



you　will　never　get　the　truth；　for　she　certainly　will　not　say　it。〃　



It　is　just　as　unscientific　as　it　is　unphilosophical　to　be　surprised



that　in　an　unsympathetic　atmosphere　certain　extraordinary　sympathies



do　not　arise。　　It　is　as　if　I　said　that　I　could　not　tell　if　there



was　a　fog　because　the　air　was　not　clear　enough；　or　as　if　I　insisted



on　perfect　sunlight　in　order　to　see　a　solar　eclipse。







　　　　　As　a　common…sense　conclusion；　such　as　those　to　which　we　come



about　sex　or　about　midnight　（well　knowing　that　many　details　must



in　their　own　nature　be　concealed）　I　conclude　that　miracles　do　happen。　



I　am　forced　to　it　by　a　conspiracy　of　facts：　　the　fact　that　the　men　who



encounter　elves　or　angels　are　not　the　mystics　and　the　morbid　dreamers；



but　fishermen；　farmers；　and　all　men　at　once　coarse　and　cautious；



the　fact　that　we　all　know　men　who　testify　to　spiritualistic　incidents



but　are　not　spiritualists；　the　fact　that　science　itself　admits



such　things　more　and　more　every　day。　　Science　will　even　admit



the　Ascension　if　you　call　it　Levitation；　and　will　very　likely　admit



the　Resurrection　when　it　has　thought　of　another　word　for　it。　



I　suggest　the　Regalvanisation。　　But　the　strongest　of　all　is



the　dilemma　above　mentioned；　that　these　supernatural　things　are



never　denied　except　on　the　basis　either　of　anti…democracy　or　of



materialist　dogmatismI　may　say　materialist　mysticism。　　The　sceptic



always　takes　one　of　the　two　positions；　either　an　ordinary　man　need



not　be　believed；　or　an　extraordinary　event　must　not　be　believed。　



For　I　hope　we　may　dismiss　the　argument　against　wonders　attempted



in　the　mere　recapitulation　of　frauds；　of　swindling　mediums　or



trick　miracles。　　That　is　not　an　argument　at　all；　good　or　bad。　



A　false　ghost　disproves　the　reality　of　ghosts　exactly　as　much　as



a　forged　banknote　disproves　the　existence　of　the　Bank　of　England



if　anything；　it　proves　its　existence。







　　　　　Given　this　conviction　that　the　spiritual　phenomena　do　occur



（my　evidence　for　which　is　complex　but　rational）；　we　then　collide



with　one　of　the　worst　mental　evils　of　the　age。　　The　greatest



disaster　of　the　nineteenth　century　was　this：　　that　men　began



to　use　the　word　〃spiritual〃　as　the　same　as　the　word　〃good。〃　



They　thought　that　to　grow　in　refinement　and　uncorporeality　was



to　grow　in　virtue。　　When　scientific　evolution　was　announced；



some　feared　that　it　would　encourage　mere　animality。　　It　did　worse：　



it　encouraged　mere　spirituality。　　It　taught　men　to　think　that　so　long



as　they　were　passing　from　the　ape　they　were　going　to　the　angel。　



But　you　can　pass　from　the　ape　and　go　to　the　devil。　　A　man　of　genius；



very　typical　of　that　time　of　bewilderment；　expressed　it　perfectly。　



Benjamin　Disraeli　was　right　when　he　said　he　was　on　the　side　of