“Writing as a hard-shell Darwinian evolutionist, a lover of the scalpel and microscope, and of patient, empirical observation, as one who dislikes all forms of supernaturalism, and who does not shrink from the implications even of the phrase that thought is a secretion of the brain as bile is a secretion of the liver, I assert as a biological fact that the moral law is as real and as external to man as the starry vault.  It has no secure seat in any single man or in any single nation.  It is the work of the blood and tears of long generations of men.  It is not in man, inborn or innate, but is enshrined in his traditions, in his customs, in his literature and his religion.  Its creation and sustenance are the crowning glory of man, and his consciousness of it puts him in a high place above the animal world.  Men live and die; nations rise and fall, but the struggle of individual lives and of individual nations must be measured not by their immediate needs, but as they tend to the debasement or perfection of man’s great achievement.”

This is the same reality.  This is the same Link and Captain that this book asserts.  It seems to me a secondary matter whether we call Him “Man’s Great Achievement” or “The Son of Man” or the “God of Mankind” or “God.”  So far as the practical and moral ends of life are concerned, it does not matter how we explain or refuse to explain His presence in our lives.

There is but one possible gap left between the position of Dr. Chalmers Mitchell and the position of this book.  In this book it is asserted that god responds, that he gives courage and the power of self-suppression to our weakness.

5.  A note on A lecture by professor Gilbert Murray

Let me now quote and discuss a very beautiful passage from a lecture upon Stoicism by Professor Gilbert Murray, which also displays the same characteristic of an involuntary shaping out of God in the forms of denial.  It is a passage remarkable for its conscientious and resolute Agnosticism.  And it is remarkable too for its blindness to the possibility of separating quite completely the idea of the Infinite Being from the idea of God.  It is another striking instance of that obsession of modern minds by merely Christian theology of which I have already complained.  Professor Murray has quoted Mr. Bevan’s phrase for God, “the Friend behind phenomena,” and he does not seem to realise that that phrase carries with it no obligation whatever to believe that this Friend is in control of the phenomena.  He assumes that he is supposed to be in control as if it were a matter of course: