Augustine: Earlier Writings (continued)
could possibly be said in greater praise of them? Ah, but the situation is not quite like that. They say this without having any ability to fulfil their promise but only to win popularity by prating of reason. The human soul naturally is pleased with such promises. It does not consider its own powers and state of health, and asks for the food of sound men which should only be given to the strong. Thus it sucks in the poison of deceivers. True religion cannot by any means be approached without the weighty command of authority. Things must first be believed of which a man may later achieve understanding if he conduct himself well and prove himself worthy.
22. But you will probably ask to be given a plausible reason why, in being taught, you must begin with faith and not rather with reason. That is easy, provided you remain calm. That we may conveniently proceed, please answer my questions. Tell me first why you think belief ought not to be required. Because, you say, credulity, the characteristic of credulous people, seems to me to be a fault; otherwise we should not be accustomed to use the word credulous as a reproach. If the mistrustful man is at fault because he suspects everything he does not know, how much worse is the credulous man? For they differ in this, that the former doubts too much when he hears of things he does not know, while the latter does not doubt at all. I accept provisionally this opinion and distinction. But you know that the epithet, curious, also usually implies a reproach, whereas to call a man studious is to praise him. Now what, pray, is the difference between these two qualities? You will certainly reply that, though both have to do with keen desire to know, the curious man is one who asks about things which do not concern him, and the studious man, on the contrary, about things which do concern him. Now a man is deeply concerned about his wife and children and their well-being, but if anyone who was away from home went on asking all comers how his wife and children were and what they were doing, he is certainly prompted by a great desire to know, and yet we do not call him studious, although he very much wants to know about things which concern him very closely. Clearly our definition of the studious man breaks down, for, while every studious man wants to know about things which concern him, not every man who does so is to be called studious, but only he who has a strong desire to know such things as contribute to the liberal nurture and equipment of his soul. We might of course rightly say that he "studied" this or that, mentioning whatever it was that specially interested him.
THE USEFULNESS OF BELIEF 3O9 We can say that he "studies" his family ifhe loves them so much, but we should not think him worthy of the name, studious, without qualification. Nor would I call a man who was desirous of hearing how his family was keeping, "studious of hearing," unless, taking special pleasure in a good report, he wanted to hear one repeatedly. But I might say "he studies" to hear if he was satisfied to hear once. Go back now to the curious man, and tell me whether you think any one is to be called curious who gladly hears a fable which will bring him no advantage, inasmuch as it is about things that do not concern him, but is satisfied to hear it occasionally and without undue eagerness, at a banquet for example, or in some circle or meeting. I don't suppose so. And yet he clearly cares for the story he gladly hears. Therefore the definition of the curious man must be amended in the same way as that of the studious man. Now see whether the definitions with which we began this discussion must not also be amended. Why should we consider a man to deserve to be called suspicious who suspects something sometime, or to be called credulous who believes something sometime. Accordingly, just as there is a great difference between one who "studies" something and a genuinely studious man, and again between one who cares for a thing and one who is curious about it, so there is a great difference between a believer and a credulous person.
X, 23. But now, you will say, let us see whether we ought to believe in the matter of religion. For even if we admit that to believe is different from being credulous it does not follow that there is nothing wrong in believing in religious matters. Possibly believing and being credulous are two differing degrees of vice like being drunk on one occasion, and being drunken habitually.
I do not see how anyone who accepts that as true can ever have a friend. For if to believe anything is base, either it is base to believe a friend, or without such belief I cannot see how anyone can go on speaking about friendship. Here perhaps you will say: I agree one must believe something sometimes, but explain to me now how in rehgion it is not base to believe before one knows. I shall do so if I can, and so I ask you this question. Which do you think is more blameworthy, to hand on religion to one who is unworthy, or to believe what is said by those who hand it on? If you do not know whom I mean by one who is unworthy, I mean one who comes with a deceitful heart. I dare say you agree that it is more blameworthy to unfold holy secrets to such a man than to believe what religious men affirm