Instead of finding a church, or some specialist, that could teach him, unfortunately and untruthfully the sceptic usually decides that it is impossible for him to be a Christian. So he resolves to be what he regards as an upright man and lets it go at that. But he does not find the great realities, except in a most vague and attenuated form.
d. The provincialism of sceptics
The most hopeless situation of all is where sceptics consort almost wholly with sceptics. They can soon kill the last remnant of religion that lingers in their hearts. The provincialism of doubt may be even greater than the provincialism of a bigoted faith. In their hearts, sceptics often try and condemn intelligent Christians with but slight knowledge of what the Christians believe and with even less knowledge of why they believe it. Many doubting minds take it for granted that all Christians conceive of religion as they themselves did when they were children in Sunday school, or boys and girls in a Junior Endeavor society. They think that a little scientific knowledge of the material universe makes anything more than agnosticism impossible. If their knowledge of religion and their philosophical knowledge of the universe were all that is known, they would be right. By learning a little more of religion, and by acquiring a better philosophical as well as scientific knowledge of the material universe many have regained their grasp on God. For such as have come to see God as the center and Soul of all things, natural science, instead of being a hindrance to, has become one illuminating phase of theology. As a Christian believer, I find myself continually going to expert scientists to ascertain their latest findings. And I can truthfully say that, from a religious point of view, their verifiable report is always interesting. It is good news. It lifts me to higher levels of thought, to nobler planes of social conduct, and to loftier heights of fellowship with God and men. God's blessings on any man that discovers anything new in God's world and reports it correctly!
A friend once said to me:
"I do not know whether there is a God or not, and I am not going to bother my head about it; I am just going to wait and see."
If, however, he finds himself alive after the death of his body, I venture to assert that the old problem of finding God will still confront him. We may rest assured that there is no ghost-God to be seen after death. This man has utterly misconceived of God and of the method of finding Him. Death will not be a substitute for spiritual development. If ever he finds God it will be as a Loving Intelligent Will, and not as a glorious ghost on which his physical eyes may look. "God is a spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." If we would know God we must seek Him as He is, and not as something which He is not.
Let the sceptic consider well this statement: So far as we can see, everything would necessarily appear just as it does if there were a God. I have never interrogated any one who could suggest anything to the contrary. If God actually exists, we shall never know Him as we know man with local form and articulate speech, unless we come to recognize Him in man. I dare say we shall never become acquainted with God save as we learn to know Him in our own souls, in other people, and in nature. So if we ever expect to know Him we would as well put forth the effort to know Him now. If it could be proved that there is a God we should still need to find Him. But if we find him we have no need of further proof. Our problem then is not one of proving, but of finding.
2. Equal striving for spiritual and material things is necessary
All normal people have senses which give them physical objects. Without these, we could not commence to live a rational life. But we must acquire some sense to make our senses of value. Most of our seeing, in the physical as well as in the spiritual, is with our sense and not alone with our senses. To achieve insight in any line requires effort. The man who has senses only, lacks the insight of the man who has both sense and senses. Therefore we must earn not only our bread by the sweat of our brow, but everything else which has priceless worth.
How covetous we all are for the material side of things! That we may truthfully know and really possess the material side of the universe, we put forth prolonged and painful effort. Our striving, however, to know and to possess the Soul of the universe is pitifully meager. If we strove no harder for the former than we do for the latter we should be ignorant and poor beyond recognition. Having long neglected the Soul of the universe we look up, occasionally, and demand proof that the world has a Soul. However, it is not proof that we need, but religious insight. If I ask proof that classical music is beautiful, I must either take other people's word for it or else acquire musical sense by living with classical music and classical musicians. The senses of the average man pronounce classical music very ugly. Mathematical or business ability will not suffice; it will more likely hinder, because as a rule it has been acquired at the expense of musical development. There are those who actually make fun of classical music without any realization of their personal defect which they are advertising. Charles Darwin was probably never surpassed in the amount of data gathered for scientific observations. And yet, there are persons in every civilized village in the world who are better judges of music; and Paul, to say nothing of Jesus, was so far ahead of him in religious insight that the contrast is painful. In every realm of knowledge known to man, so-called proof is but seeing and understanding and appreciating. Logic does not prove anything. If for our major premise we say all normal men are rational, we rest our belief on observation. If for our minor premise we affirm that here is a normal man, we do so on the ground of observation. If both observations are correct, then we need no proof that the man of the minor premise is rational because it is self-evident. Logic is often a convenient method of seeing, but it is never a proof. Even in mathematics we do not prove, we see. Not a single proposition in mathematics is proved; its truth is only perceived. The so-called proof is but a method of separating the elements of a condensed proposition so that these elements, one by one, may be recognized. The certainty began with one or more axioms, and proceeded with rules built upon observation, and the certainty at every step to the finish rested on something self-evident. A prominent man assured me that he could prove that two and two were four. However, the first thing I learned in Geometry was that an axiom was too self-evident to be capable of proof. The highly complex methods which we have devised for reducing intricate mathematical statements of their axiomatic verities we call proof, but the term proof can only be used in this accommodated sense, for fundamentally we have proved nothing; we have simply increased our intelligence by using a speedy and ingenious method of looking. When it is said that one does not know how to prove a proposition, it only means that he does not know how to separate and arrange the elements in such a manner that the mind can see them. Fundamentally, nothing in the world is proved. When we clearly see, doubt flees and certainty comes. If in anything a person insists that he can not see, all we can do is to ask him to look again; or perhaps we may try holding the truth at different angles, or we may present its elements in some new order. If, however, nothing enables him to see, then in respect to that particular thing he is damned. I had a very intelligent friend who was dismissed from an important position because he was color-blind.