p the roots of their own faith to see how deep
they go. I merely want to point out that the occurrence of certain
emotional experiences, though undoubtedly they may constitute part of the
data of a religious argument, cannot be held to constitute in and by
themselves sufficient evidence for the truth of the intellectual theory
connected with them in the mind of the person to whom they occur. They
do not always present themselves as sufficient evidence for their truth
even to the person experiencing them--still less can they do so to
others. Equally unreasonable is it to maintain, with a certain class of
religious philosophers, that the religious experience by itself is all we
want; and to assume that we may throw to the winds all the theological or
other beliefs which have actually been associated {114} with the various
types of religious experience, and yet continue to have those experiences
and find them no less valuable and no less satisfying. If there is one
thing which the study of religious Psychology testifies to, it is the
fact that the character of the religious experience (though there may be
certain common elements in it) varies very widely with the character of
the theoretical belief with which it is associated--a belief of which it
is sometimes the cause, sometimes the effect, but from which it is always
inseparable. The Buddhist's religious experiences are not possible to
those who hold the Christian's view of the Universe: the Christian's
religious experiences are not possible to one who holds the Buddhist
theory of the Universe. You cannot have an experience of communion with
a living Being when you disbelieve in the existence of such a Being. And
a man's theories of the Universe always at bottom imply a Metaphysic of
some kind--conscious or unconscious.

Sometimes the theory of a Religion which shall be purely psychological
springs from pure ignorance as to the meaning of the terms actually
employed by the general usage of philosophers. Those who talk in this
way mean by Psychology what, according to the ordinary philosophic usage,
is really Metaphysic. For Metaphysic is simply the science which deals
with the ultimate nature of the Universe. {115} At other times attempts
are made by people of more or less philosophical culture to justify their
theory. The most widely influential of such attempts is the one made by
M. Auguste Sabatier.[10] This attempt has at least this much in its
favour--th