philosophy and therefore fail to appreciate its potential dangers to religion. Start with the supposition that human life and action can be exclusively explained by mechanical categories, and a narrowed naturalism inevitably follows, leaving no place for religion. Those who accept the concepts of consciousness, self-determination, freedom, idealism and religion must find such a naturalism limited. Human conduct, which is merely the product of morphological and physiological biology, has no goal except mechanically determined actions. To be sure, the human mind contains a mechanical background but this by itself is an incomplete philosophy of living. In the social realm mechanization issues in moral institutionalism leaving the searcher vainly looking for the source of triumph and conquest. We require a deeper theory of life. A more adequate psychology is urgently needed by the religious educator that will supplement the functional description of mind facts and "skills."

The Quest for Personality.-With the controversy pertaining to the problem of the nature of consciousness religious education has but little part. It accepts consciousness as an undoubted fact, for in it lies the awareness of human experience. To deny this principle means the stunting of moral capacities through sheer mechanization. Since religious education must be regarded as an agency which seeks to motivate and control human conduct, through the purposive activity of a religious consciousness, it therefore needs a Being underlying the incessant changes of Nature. And such a Being is necessary to Thought which requires the "I," or Self, that undergoes the experiences of consciousness, having its own nature and attributes. Religious education cannot then accept the skepticism of David Hume, who, in observing the succession of his own sensations, declared he could find no sensation of Self. It must go deeper into the fabric of human experience than those who deny the existence of personality whether they be empiricists or behaviorists.

Modern psychology, especially in its social aspects, is in the beginnings of the study of personality. Technique is being devised for the evaluation and measurement of the traits of personality. Ranking, rating, scoring methods are being developed for those types of human behavior which can be reduced to fundamental mechanisms, prepotent reflexes, habit formations, emotional characteristics and intelligence. These elements of behavior are, however, mechanical "drives," acquiring compelling powers, controlling the integration of habit systems in the in

dividual's development on the physiological plane; social contacts, social conflicts in human behavior necessitating readjustments considered as the determinants of human personality, potentialities of the human being for social life.

Religious education will inherit the application and explanation of the genetic development of personality with its investigation of mechanical activity but it cannot wholly rely on quantitative factors in man's biological nature-what William James called the "bodily self." It must see in the "social man" a self which has purposes, a self controlled by ideals, which is causative. This means that personality, for the religious educator, is a teleological concept despite the "primary drives to action," because for him the universe does still exhibit the divine purpose. If he refuses to accept this position then he must drop the adjective "religious" from the term religious education. He will accept then the evolutionist conclusions of Bergson and Driesch; he will hold that evolution is God's method of accomplishing his ends, and that cosmic action has been too purposive in character to permit a purely mechanical explanation of life. A quotation from Professor E. S. Brightman will more clearly state our position:

The facts of biological adaptation, the direction of evolution, the function of consciousness, the values revealed in experience, are among the data that point to a teleological interpretation. There is, then, evidence both for mechanism and for teleology; and it is one of the tasks of metaphysics to think through the mechanistie and teleological aspects of experience.

Religious education must then include metaphysics as well as psychology in the formulation of its content and method.

Introspective psychology (structuralism) should lend itself more readily to the needs of the content of religious education, sustaining the superstructure of religious psychology with its data on consciousness and experience. But at the present stage of mechanistic theory we cannot see much hope of reward in flirting with the behaviorists with their flagrant and unscientific denial of the subjective elements in mental life. Fortunately only a few extreme behaviorists have meddled with religion and their studies have been mostly concerned with the essence of religious belief. This makes it more easy to refute the value of their work, for they have fallen into the error of supposing that

3 "The Contribution of Philosophy to the Theory of Religious Education," Boston University Bulletin, July 15, 1924, Vol. 13, p. 12.

religious behavior constitutes religious faith. A cursory examination will at once show that religious belief cannot be reduced to a set of organic and physiological entities. Religious belief, as it is known to the student of comparative religion, is far too complicated in its mental setting to be simplified into behavior categories of conditioned reflexes, explicit and implicit reaction patterns. Nothing but confusion can come from such superficial examinations of religion.

Personality is a metaphysical reality. It represents the unification of the Self in which the creative powers of insight and freedom gain the mastery in human experience. It relates man to God transforming his inner life and social contacts. There is a danger in the strictly ethical and social theory of religion that it may become a self-surrendered positivism which substitutes the "social mind" for a "theistic God." How can religious education be adequately built on mere mechanical adjustment or social functioning? We must recognize that religious education, depending on the recognition of a Higher Power, is essential to social progress and is the one thing that will temper morality as the Summum Bonum of human conduct. It is therefore our task "to keep religious education religious" for herein lies its special social function.

The prime concern for the religious educator is then an acceptance of the Self or Personality, which, according to Galloway, is "the unity in all states of consciousness." This is clear for the reason that he is dealing with spiritual reality which is the ultimate. If we fail to recognize personality as the basic fact in religion we lose sight of the supreme controlling spiritual factor in life. Personality, then, must be accepted and stand finally, the empirical test of life's inner creative facts as well as those of the organic and natural order.

The Need for a Revised Psychology of Religious Education.If human conduct is "socially conditioned" as some pragmatists assert; if self-organization is completely ignored, we must either eliminate the God-consciousness from our thinking and become out and out pragmatists, or reconstruct morality without theism. and become agnostics without apology. Such a philosophy would deny creative awakening, which is the supreme service. of education, and lead to a naturalism at once absolute and hopeless. Ideals, purposive control, spiritual values would vanish. Positivism would be all in all.

Many educators, even religious educators, may be satisfied with a religion of self-expansion. There are others who are

rightly suspicious of a mere functional religion. They do not overlook the fact that development has its place, and growth in social values is urgently needed, but in development there is something not always resident in our finite human nature and somatic capacities. The religious educator surely recognizes the acquired merits of life which proceeds from the Infinite, from God and the Christ of experience. Education and morality are manifestly incomplete without the higher personal values of religion. Man needs a vital faith placing him under the compulsion of a moral code, commanded by a loving God, whose infinite and beneficent purpose slowly unfolds through the medium of personal fellowship. This was the method of Jesus who at all times centered his deeds on the "will of God." Religion must stand for a faith in a controlling God, "a divine Mind and Will, ruling the universe and holding moral relations with mankind" [Martineau], and not a mere social idea shown in the consciousness of highest social values. Above everything else the human race needs a theistic conception of the universe. The Gospels confirm this need, for it is recorded that a lawyer asked Jesus, "Which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus replied, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment." (An interpretation of theistic values.) "And a second like unto it is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." (An interpretation of social values.) "On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets." To "love the Lord thy God" is life's supreme purpose, super-intellectual, super-moral, super-social; a source of energy, power and the rule of love which establishes the belief in the Fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.

If man can manufacture a functional God and adjust human conduct to his own moral standards, the immature intellect of our humanity will be its own undoing. We must feel ourselves to be a part of a real moral universe with loyalties both personal and social. Without this symbol, religious sanctions would degenerate and morality would lose its social value. Moreover, if our moral ideal is rationally regarded as the revelation of the moral ideal eternally existing in the mind of God, as Rashdall has shown, it can then claim objective validity which includes the practical affairs of social living. This is moral and social advance par excellence.

Modern thinking seems to indulge in two fatal errors. Either it denies the existence of God outright, or it provides for &

relaxation in moral restraint in the name of determinism and social adjustment. This points the way to a world with shriveled and anæmic social values, which, when examined, appear to be nothing more than intellectualized fashions, individualized whims, prudentialized morals. No civilization can survive on such an uncertain trinity of social adjustments. Professor C. A. Ellwood holds that such an attempt would produce a "religionless world, a social world of uncertainties, destitute of enthusiasm and vision, reduced to the dead level of expediency." In such a régime, moral and legal restrictions would suffer a breakdown, civilization would ultimately collapse through the decay of religious ideals and values.

Modern man needs a vital and inspiring religion that keeps step with the progress of science and recognizes the practical realities in social organization. Practical religion, nowadays, is not so much concerned with the eschatological dogmas of history as with the power to endow man with an increased reverence for life's daily tasks. Religious education, if it is to be religious, cannot escape then, "belief is an everlasting God, a Divine Mind and Will ruling the universe and holding moral relations with mankind." It must find religion in human feeling, intellect and will-the major components of the indestructible Self. Religion must be a feeling of dependence, as Schleiermacher would say, a feeling that objectifies itself, an emotion based on the recognition of man's dependence on the Supreme and Eternal whence proceed the inspiration and the illumination of life. Rudolph Otto refers to this relationship as a volitional feeling, a quality of experience isolated from other rational and associated ideas. To use his phrase, it is a "mysterium tremendum" and beyond the function of the gregarious instinct turned toward a religious object through the emotion of fear. For religious emotions are not merely natural instinct-emotions because highest values must be spiritually awakened rather than considered to be the result of functional adjustment. Religion therefore becomes an instrument for teaching virtue and ethics. It accomplishes its task by imparting ideas, cultivating right habits through spiritually motivated attitudes, purposes and feelings. These serve as a guide in the control of human conduct which enable the social instincts, relying on the consciousness of God, to blossom into the righteousness of social organization.

Are Religion and Science Antagonistic?—Religion and science have much in common. Both demand complete self-sur