按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
though effaced by time or other accidents。 Here we mount
from the effect to the cause； and descending again from the
cause； infer alterations in the effect； but this is not a
continuation of the same simple chain of reasoning。 We
comprehend in this case a hundred other experiences and
observations； concerning the figure and members of
that species of animal； without which this method of
argument must be considered as fallacious and sophistical。
The case is not the same with our reasonings from the
works of nature。 The Deity is known to us only by his
productions； and is a single being in the universe； not
comprehended under any species or genus； from whose
experienced attributes or qualities； we can； by analogy；
infer any attribute or quality in him。 As the universe shews
wisdom and goodness； we infer wisdom and goodness。 As it
shews a particular degree of these perfections； we infer a
particular degree of them； precisely adapted to the effect
which we examine。 But farther attributes or farther degrees
of the same attributes； we can never be authorised to infer
or suppose； by any rules of just reasoning。 Now； without
some such licence of supposition； it is impossible for us to
argue from the cause； or infer any alteration in the effect；
beyond what has immediately fallen under our observation。
Greater good produced by this Being must still prove a
greater degree of goodness： A more impartial distribution of
rewards and punishments must proceed from a greater regard
to justice and equity。 Every supposed addition to the works
of nature makes an addition to the attributes of the Author
of nature； and consequently； being entirely unsupported by
any reason or argument； can never be admitted but as mere
conjecture and hypothesis。＇36＇
The great source of our mistake in this subject； and of
the unbounded licence of conjecture； which we indulge； is；
that we tacitly consider ourselves； as in the place of the
Supreme Being； and conclude； that he will； on every
occasion； observe the same conduct； which we ourselves； in
his situation； would have embraced as reasonable and
eligible。 But； besides that the ordinary course of nature
may convince us； that almost everything is regulated by
principles and maxims very different from ours； besides
this； I say； it must evidently appear contrary to all rules
of analogy to reason； from the intentions and projects of
men； to those of a Being so different； and so much superior。
In human nature； there is a certain experienced coherence of
designs and inclinations； so that when； from any fact； we
have discovered one intention of any man； it may often be
reasonable； from experience； to infer another； and draw a
long chain of conclusions concerning his past or future
conduct。 But this method of reasoning can never have place
with regard to a Being； so remote and incomprehensible； who
bears much less analogy to any other being in the universe
than the sun to a waxen taper； and who discovers himself
only by some faint traces or outlines； beyond which we have
no authority to ascribe to him any attribute or perfection。
What we imagine to be a superior perfection； may really be a
defect。 Or were it ever so much a perfection； the ascribing
of it to the Supreme Being； where it appears not to have
been really exerted； to the full； in his works； savours more
of flattery and panegyric； than of just reasoning and sound
philosophy。 All the philosophy； therefore； in the world； and
all the religion； which is nothing but a species of
philosophy； will never be able to carry us beyond the usual
course of experience； or give us measures of conduct and
behaviour different from those which are furnished by
reflections on common life。 No new fact can ever be inferred
from the religious hypothesis； no event foreseen or
foretold； no reward or punishment expected or dreaded；
beyond what is already known by practice and observation。 So
that my apology for E/PICURUS will still appear solid and
satisfactory； nor have the political interests of society
any connexion with the philosophical disputes concerning
metaphysics and religion。
There is still one circumstance； replied I； which you
seem to have overlooked。 Though I should allow your
premises； I must deny your conclusion。 You conclude； that
religious doctrines and reasonings have no influence
on life； because they to have no influence； never
considering； that men reason not in the same manner you do；
but draw many consequences from the belief of a divine
Existence； and suppose that the Deity will inflict
punishments on vice； and bestow rewards on virtue； beyond
what appear in the ordinary course of nature。 Whether this
reasoning of theirs be just or not； is no matter。 Its
influence on their life and conduct must still be the same。
And those； who attempt to disabuse them of such prejudices；
may； for aught I know； be good reasoners； but I cannot allow
them to be good citizens and politicians； since they free
men from one restraint upon their passions； and make the
infringement of the laws of society； in one respect； more
easy and secure。
After all； I may； perhaps； agree to your general
conclusion in favour of liberty； though upon different
premises from those； on which you endeavour to found it。 I
think； that the state ought to tolerate every principle of
philosophy； nor is there an instance； that any government
has suffered in its political interests by such indulgence。
There is no enthusiasm among philosophers； their doctrines
are not very alluring to the people； and no restraint can be
put upon their reasonings； but what must be of dangerous
consequence to the sciences； and even to the state； by
paving the way for persecution and oppression in points；
where the generality of mankind are more deeply interested
and concerned。
But there occurs to me （continued I） with regard to
your main topic； a difficulty； which I shall just propose to
you without insisting on it； lest it lead into reasonings of
too nice and delicate a nature。 In a word； I much doubt
whether it be possible for a cause to be known only by its
effect （as you have all along supposed） or to be of so
singular and particular a nature as to have no parallel and
no similarity with any other cause or object； that has ever
fallen under our observation。 It is only when two
of objects are found to be constantly conjoined； that we can
infer the one from the other； and were an effect presented；
which was entirely singular； and could not be comprehended
under any known ； I do not see； that we could form
any conjecture or inference at all concerning its cause。 If
experience and observation and analogy be； indeed； the only
guides which we can reasonably follow in inferences of this
nature； both the effect and cause must bear a similarity and
resemblance to other effects and causes； which we know； and
which we have found； in many instances； to be conjoined with
each other。 I leave it to your own reflection to pursue the
consequences of this principle。 I shall just observe； that；
as the antagonists of E/PICURUS always suppose the
univers