The Life of Reason, Vol. 3: Reason in Religion

Life of Reason #3

by George Santayana

George Santayana (16 December 1863 in Madrid, Spain - 26 September 1952 in Rome, Italy) was a philosopher, essayist, poet and novelist. This volume espouse his opinion of religion in Experience has repeatedly confirmed that well-known maxim of Bacon's that "a little philosophy inclineth a man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." At the same time, when Bacon penned that sage epigram... he forgot to add that the God to whom depth in philosophy brings back men's minds is far from being the same from whom a little philosophy estranges them. Matters of religion should never be matters of controversy. We neither argue with a lover about his taste, nor condemn him, if we are just, for knowing so human a passion. Fashion is something barbarous, for it produces innovation without reason and imitation without benefit. Happiness is the only sanction of life; where happiness fails, existence remains a mad and lamentable experiment.

Genres: Philosophy, Religion

279 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1982

About the author

Philosopher, poet, literary and cultural critic, George Santayana is a principal figure in Classical American Philosophy. His naturalism and emphasis on creative imagination were harbingers of important intellectual turns on both sides of the Atlantic. He was a naturalist before naturalism grew popular; he appreciated multiple perfections before multiculturalism became an issue; he thought of philosophy as literature before it became a theme in American and European scholarly circles; and he managed to naturalize Platonism, update Aristotle, fight off idealisms, and provide a striking and sensitive account of the spiritual life without being a religious believer. His Hispanic heritage, shaded by his sense of being an outsider in America, captures many qualities of American life missed by insiders, and presents views equal to Tocqueville in quality and importance. Beyond philosophy, only Emerson may match his literary production. As a public figure, he appeared on the front cover of Time (3 February 1936), and his autobiography (Persons and Places, 1944) and only novel (The Last Puritan, 1936) were the best-selling books in the United States as Book-of-the-Month Club selections. The novel was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, and Edmund Wilson ranked Persons and Places among the few first-rate autobiographies, comparing it favorably to Yeats's memoirs, The Education of Henry Adams, and Proust's Remembrance of Things Past. Remarkably, Santayana achieved this stature in American thought without being an American citizen. He proudly retained his Spanish citizenship throughout his life. Yet, as he readily admitted, it is as an American that his philosophical and literary corpuses are to be judged. Using contemporary classifications, Santayana is the first and foremost Hispanic-American philosopher.

Reviews

[Bret · Rating 4 out of 5]

George Santayana is that rare thing: a good philosopher who can write well. There is a paragraph (containing the sentence, “Every moment celebrates obsequies over the virtues of its predecessor; and the possession of memory, by which we somehow survive in representation, is the most unmistakable proof that we are perishing in reality”) whose eloquence merits comparison with the essays of Samuel Johnson.

That is not to say I usually agree with him. I often don’t. I am a practicing Christian, and (despite what another reviewer seems to think) Santayana did not practice any organized relion since he abandoned the Catholicism of his youth.

His atheism is of a higher calibre than that of our New Athiests; having read the great works of the past with diligence and sympathy, he knows what he is critiquing, and he is able to sift, at least from his perspective, what is valuable in religion from what is not.

Perhaps there are too many cases where he asserts a point with too little argument. Perhaps Santayana can come off as a wee bit condescending at times (to religious and irreligious fundamentalists alike). But the spirit of humane wisdom that pervades his work more than makes up for his faults.

Here is a taste: “[Christ] understood the bright good that each sinner was following when he stumbled into the pit. For this insight he was loved. To be rebuked in that sympathetic spirit was to be comforted; to be punished by such a hand was to be made whole. The Magdalene was forgiven because she had loved much; an absolution which rehabilitates the primary longing that had driven her on, a longing not insulted but comprehended in such an absolution, and purified by that comprehension. It is a charitable salvation which enables the newly revealed deity to be absolutely loved. Charity has this art of making men abandon their errors without asking them to forget their ideals.”

[Alex Tveit · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lot of great philosophy on religion. However, NOT an easy read!

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE THIRD PART OF SANTAYANA’S “LIFE OF REASON”

Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás (but known as “George Santayana”; 1863–1952), was a philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist. His most famous book series is 'The Life of Reason'---which includes 'Reason in Common Sense,' 'Reason in Society,' 'Reason in Religion,' 'Reason in Art,' and 'Reason in Science.' He also wrote 'The Sense of Beauty: Being the Outline of Aesthetic Theory.'

He says in the first chapter, “Thus religion has the same original relation to life that poetry has; only poetry, which never pretends to literal validity, adds a pure value to existence, the value of a liberal imaginative exercise. The poetic value of religion would initially be greater than that of poetry itself, because religion deals with higher and more practical themes… But this initial advantage is neutralized in part by the abuse to which religion is subject, whenever its symbolic rightness is taken for scientific truth… This spurious satisfaction is naturally the prelude to many a disappointment, and the soul has infinite trouble to emerge again from the artificial problems and sentiments into which it is plunged.” (Pg. 14)

But he adds, “But we must not blame religion for preventing the development of a moral and natural science which at any rate would seldom have appeared; we must rather thank it for the sensibility, the reverence, the speculative insight which it has introduced into the world.” (Pg. 15)

He suggests, “Religion is an interpretation of experience, honestly made, and made in view of man’s happiness and its empirical conditions. That this interpretation is poetical goes without saying, since natural and moral science, even today, are inadequate for the task. But the mythical form into which men cast their wisdom was not chosen by them because they preferred to be imaginative; it was not embraced, as its survivals are now defended, out of sentimental attachment to grandiloquent but inaccurate thoughts. Mythical forms were adopted because none other were available, nor could the primitive mind discriminate at all between the mythical and the scientific.” (Pg. 27)

He states, “Prayer is a soliloquy; but being a soliloquy expressing need, and being furthermore, like sacrifice, a desperate expedient which men fly to in their impotence, it looks for an effect: to cry aloud, to make vows, to contrast eloquently the given with the ideal situation, is certainly as likely a way of bringing about a change for the better as it would be to chastise one’s self severely, or to destroy what one loves best, or to perform acts altogether trivial or arbitrary. Prayer also is magic, and as such it is expected to do work.” (Pg. 32)

He asserts, “It would be easy to write, in a satirical vein, the history of Protestant dogma. Its history was foreseen from the beginning by intelligent observers. It consisted in a gradual and inevitable descent into a pious skepticism. The attempt to cling to various intermediate positions that slopes down from ancient revelation to private experiences can succeed only for a time and when local influences limit speculative freedom… Its true essence is not constituted by the Christian dogmas that at a given moment it chances to retain, but by the spirit in which it constantly challenges the others, by the expression it gives to personal integrity, to faith, in conscience, to human instinct courageously meeting the world.” (Pg. 86-87)

He begins the 10th chapter with the statement, “Hebriasm is a striking example of a religion tending to discard mythology and magic. It was a Hebraising apostle who said that true religion and undefiled was to visit the fatherless and the widow, and do other works of mercy. Although a complete religion can hardly remain without theoretic and ritual expression, we must remember that after all religion has other aspects less conspicuous, perhaps, than its mythology, but often more worthy of respect. If religion be, as we have assumed, an imaginative symbol for the Life of Reason, it should contain not only symbolic ideas and rites, but also symbolic sentiments and duties. And so it everywhere does in a notable fashion.” (Pg. 125)

He observes, “The Buddhists seem to have shown a finer sense in their ministry, knowing how to combine universal sympathy with perfect spirituality. There was no brow-beating in their call to conversion, no new tyranny imposed or sanctioned by their promised deliverance.” (Pg. 155)

He argues, “The world is weary of experimenting with magic. In utter seriousness and with immense solemnity whole races have given themselves up to exploiting these shabby mysteries; and while a new survey of the facts, in the light of natural science and psychology, is certainly not superstitious, it can be expected to lead to nothing but a more detailed and conscientious description of natural processes. The thought of employing such investigations to save at the last moment religious doctrines founded on moral ideas is a pathetic blunder: the obscene supernatural has nothing to do with rational religion.” (Pg. 161)

He notes, “If immortality is to be genuine, what is immortal is to concern life and not mere significance or ideal definition, that which endures must be an individual creature with a fixed nucleus of habits and demands, so that its persistence may contain progress and achievement. Herewith we may dismiss the more direct attempts to conceive and assert a future life. Their failure drives us to a consideration of indirect attempts to establish an unobservable but real immortality through revelation and dogma.” (Pg. 167)

This book will interest anyone studying Santayana’s philosophy, or the philosophy of religion.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Admirable effort to make religion seem rational and probably a lot of effort to bring the pointless stupidity of ritual in sync with what was then the modern society. An effort started in what I assume a petty frustration: he is religious, yet he wants to fool others into seeing him as a modern intelligent person and not just another peasant who went to school through the mercy of the state.