Bernard Shaw's Remarkable Religion: A Faith That Fits the Facts

A Creed for Living 5
ticism toward a priorist values and judgments. In this Shaw is perfectly in
accord with much of modern philosophy, particularly the philosophy of
science. But science is concerned with the structure of the physical world,
and Shaw devoted his life to the moral and social world; while science asks,
“What is?” and “How does it happen?” Shaw was concerned with “What
should we do about it?” and “How can we make it better?” Philosophy has
always been less certain about such questions. While still far from achieving
consensus, it has been moving in Shaw’s direction here as well. Difficult
as it may be for many to believe, moral philosophy is still trying to
catch up with Bernard Shaw. Equally surprising, and just as true, is that
philosophers are beginning to regard science as Shaw did. Shaw is still far
ahead of our time, as well as his. Our civilization is, to cite one of his favorite
passages from Scripture, rushing down a steep place to drown in the sea
(Mark 5:13). He knew the way to save us and devoted his life to showing us
the way, but we have not understood. Why?
The heart of the difficulty is that Shaw, though he knew that religion,
philosophy, and science were one, did not think or speak in a way to be
understood by theologians, philosophers, or scientists. He was really a
prophet. Like many prophets, Shaw did not articulate in a systematic and
analytical way the fundamental assumptions forming the platform from
which he viewed the world. To make sense of Shaw—to reconcile the apparent
contradictions and finally see as he saw—we must systematically
reconstruct the intellectual foundation that came spontaneously to him.
Consistency or Contradiction?
To what extent did Shaw’s thinking change or evolve during the course of
his long career? Many explain the seeming contradictions by maintaining
that the Shavian philosophy can be understood only as a long evolution
over the course of his lifetime. Samuel Yorks devotes a book to this view.
J. L. Wisenthal argues that in the 1890s Shaw’s thinking underwent important
changes that are evident in the plays of that period and, more significantly,
in revisions Shaw made in earlier works—especially The Quintessence
of Ibsenism (29–37). In contrast, Louis Crompton writes: “When
he sat down to write the first act of Widowers’ Houses in 1885, he was a
man whose opinions and judgment were fully mature” (1). Charles Carpenter
declares that Shaw’s fundamental philosophical convictions had
been formed by 1881 and remained unchanged until his death (28).
Pressed to choose between these opinions, it would be much wiser to go
with the latter because there is nothing in Shaw’s later work that violates