New-York tribune., 1909-07-24
DIR. EITOTS NEW RELIGION.

Readers Of DR.. Eliots address upon The New
Religion" will naturally divide into two groups
with Numerically opposite views. Those who
regard the belief he outlined new will think
it no religion, and those who regard II as Il
religion will not think it new. Certainly. the
creed he described, If it can be called creed
has been substantially held by many men for
more than few years. 1t is not far from
Untarianism with, let us say, something Of the
social workers" conception of the order OF
things about 1t: which is only natural. for DR.
Eliot is Il Unitarian and what Is an educator
but social worker? But it lacks all those
qualities for which the multitude turn 10 re
liciOn, if they turn at all. We cannot imagine
the Salvation Army conducting rally with the
new religion in the twentieth century. unless
there shall be a great intellectual uplift among
the occupants of park benches and the fire.
quenters of rescue missions
The new religion is not to be based upon au-
thority either temporal or spiritual, DR. Eliot
predicts. This will call for a degree of per-
fection in humanity that has not yet been
reached and is certainly not in sight. The ma
iOrity for their spiritual support require spirit
uaI authority. Without authority to lean upon
there would not be much comfort for them in
religion. But the new religion is not to offer
much comfort, DR.. Eliot tells us. because com
fort will not be required. Another intirnatiOn
or an improved race. he new reilSlbn " Ill not
afford safety primarily TO the individuals; it
"will think first of the common good, and will
mot teach that character can be changed
quickly" It's hope will be for the race not for
the individual There will be place in it for
that weakness which calls for the privilege OF
repentance forgiveness and redemption. DIR.
Eliot speaks of it as if it were the religion Of
democracy. but it seems like religion of aris-
tocracy, one for the few superior men, the
supermen
The president emeritus of Harvard is. of
course, merely predicting the next stage of re-
ligious thought from its present direction. And
no doubt he is right in emphasizing the break
down of authority in religion, as elsewhere. and
in dwelling on the tendency TO regard every
thing from the social rather than the individual
point of view. Religious creeds may undergo
something of this ''socalzing" influence Mod
ern thought has overturned the attitude Of men
toward every question. If do not go so far
with nature as be careless of the single life"
at least have become more careful of the
type" SO might be regarded moving
forward toward a religion which would con
Germ itself less with the sins and SORROWS of the
individual and a great deal more with "the
common good" as DR.. Eliot thinks. When,
however he reaches this conclusion he is
merely applying Darwinism and the ideas that
have grown out of DarwiniSm TO determine the
direction of religious thought But just before
Darwin, where would he have been who had
attempted to outline the future development of
mans attitude toward any question? And who
could have foreseen Darwin? DR.. Eliot's pre-
diction makes no allowance for mutation" 1t
spares no room for sports" in the intellectual
field 1t leaves possible future Darwins out of
consideration. But it is q good guess that some
persons will hold the belief he outlines-and
every other conceivable belief under the sun