In the following passage, Rashdall contends that what is
controversial is not the existence of an objectively valid Moral Law
but only the manner of its existence:
We say that the Moral Law has a real existence, that there is such a thing
as absolute Morality, that there is something absolutely true or false in
ethical judgments, whether we or any number of human beings at any
given time actually think so or not. Such a belief is distinctly implied to
what we mean by Morality. The idea of such an unconditional
objectively valid Moral Law or ideal undoubtedly exists as a psychological
fact. The question before us is whether it is capable of theoretical
justification. We must then face the question where such an ideal exists,
and what manner of existence we are to attribute to it. Certainly, it is to
be found, wholly and completely, in no individual human
consciousness. Men actually think differently about moral questions
and there is no empirical reason for supposing that they will ever do
otherwise. Where then and how does the moral ideal really exist?(7)
Having reached the conclusion that the moral standard must be
based on a universal and absolute system of values, Rashdall
proceeds to tell us that such a system can have its source nowhere
but in the Divine Mind:
An absolute Moral Law or moral ideal cannot exist in material things.
And it does not (we have seen) exist in the mind of this or that
individual .... A moral ideal can exist nowhere and nohow but in a
mind; an absolute moral ideal can exist only in a Mind from which all
Reality is derived. Our moral ideal can only claim objective validity in
so far as it can rationally be regarded as a revelation of a moral ideal
eternally existing in the mind of God.(8)
For this reason, Brightman says: "If we are to have a God at all,
we must have a being that is a trustworthy source of value.”(9)
Bergson discusses the question whether it is possible for human
intellect to reach reality and gives a negative answer:
Not through intelligence, or at least through intelligence alone, can
(man) do so: intelligence would be more likely to proceed in the
opposite direction; it was provided for a definite object and when it
attempts speculation on a higher plane it enables us at the most to
conceive possibilities; it does not attain any reality.(10)
Einstein, the most eminent physicist of our time, frankly
admitted that science can never give us "spiritual" guidance. He
argued that only men to whom Revelation has been vouchsafed,
could give us guidance in the "spiritual" sphere:
Islam: A Challenge to Religion 132