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

52 Bernard Shaw’s Remarkable Religion
Shaw’s Religion: The Essence and the Argument
The clearest and most straightforward statement of Shaw’s religious philosophy
is in his speeches, conveniently compiled by Warren Sylvester
Smith. The message is much the same as in the preface to Back to Methuselah
but more succinct and lucid. The core ideas are in several of the
speeches, notably “The New Theology,” “The Religion of the Future,”
“Modern Religion I,” and “Modern Religion II.” In his usual misleading
fashion, he disclaims logic and reason: “I do not address myself to your
logical faculties, but as one human mind trying to put himself in contact
with other human minds” (10). He then expounds his religious ideas logically
and rationally. While insisting on what might be called sentimental
premises, he develops them in a logically sound manner. He comes close to
the ideal of Thomas Aquinas, who declared that religious truth must transcend
reason without ever violating it. This logical development is clear in
an outline of his core ideas:
(1) When humane, thoughtful people begin to think seriously about
traditional religion they are forced to reject much of it because the Old
Testament’s “tribal idol,” who is feared and obeyed because he is wicked,
petty, and vindictive, is morally inconceivable. Kind and caring people cannot
conceive of a God who is more cruel, petty, and mean-spirited than
they are. The identification of this “Almighty Fiend,” as Shelley called
Him, with “religion” makes kindly people declare themselves atheists.
Humane sentiment leads thoughtful people to reject God.
(2) Unfortunately, there are good reasons for believing in a ferocious
God. One is the argument from design: the complexity of living things
seems to serve a purpose; it enables them to live. The organs of the body so
admirably serve their various functions that they must have been expressly
designed. The existence of design implies the existence of a designer,
that is, God. But if God “designed” the world, He must have designed
all of it, including suffering, stupidity, and wickedness. If God is in
charge, He must have caused it.
(3) This produces a dilemma: the argument from design concludes there
is a God, but observation says He must be Shelley’s Almighty Fiend. Attempts
to deny this logical conclusion only succeed in highlighting it.
When Gottfried Leibniz tried logically to demonstrate the omnipotence,
omniscience, and benevolence of God, he was forced to conclude that there
is no evil in the world. Maintaining both religious premises and logical
procedure forced him into blatant violation of common sense, as Voltaire
so wittily demonstrated in Candide. Shaw saw the omnipotent and be-