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！
provided against； and the dispute must remain unsettled。 Take； for
example； the theistic proposition： There is a Supreme Being； and on
the other hand； the atheistic counter…statement： There exists no
Supreme Being； or； in psychology： Everything that thinks possesses the
attribute of absolute and permanent unity； which is utterly
different from the transitory unity of material phenomena； and the
counter…proposition： The soul is not an immaterial unity； and its
nature is transitory； like that of phenomena。 The objects of these
questions contain no heterogeneous or contradictory elements； for they
relate to things in themselves； and not to phenomena。 There would
arise； indeed； a real contradiction； if reason came forward with a
statement on the negative side of these questions alone。 As regards
the criticism to which the grounds of proof on the affirmative side
must be subjected； it may be freely admitted； without necessitating
the surrender of the affirmative propositions； which have； at least；
the interest of reason in their favour… an advantage which the
opposite party cannot lay claim to。
I cannot agree with the opinion of several admirable thinkers…
Sulzer among the rest… that； in spite of the weakness of the arguments
hitherto in use； we may hope； one day； to see sufficient
demonstrations of the two cardinal propositions of pure reason… the
existence of a Supreme Being； and the immortality of the soul。 I am
certain； on the contrary； that this will never be the case。 For on
what ground can reason base such synthetical propositions； which do
not relate to the objects of experience and their internal
possibility？ But it is also demonstratively certain that no one will
ever be able to maintain the contrary with the least show of
probability。 For； as he can attempt such a proof solely upon the basis
of pure reason； he is bound to prove that a Supreme Being； and a
thinking subject in the character of a pure intelligence； are
impossible。 But where will he find the knowledge which can enable
him to enounce synthetical judgements in regard to things which
transcend the region of experience？ We may； therefore； rest assured
that the opposite never will be demonstrated。 We need not； then；
have recourse to scholastic arguments； we may always admit the truth
of those propositions which are consistent with the speculative
interests of reason in the sphere of experience； and form； moreover；
the only means of uniting the speculative with the practical interest。
Our opponent； who must not be considered here as a critic solely； we
can be ready to meet with a non liquet which cannot fail to disconcert
him； while we cannot deny his right to a similar retort； as we have on
our side the advantage of the support of the subjective maxim of
reason； and can therefore look upon all his sophistical arguments with
calm indifference。
From this point of view； there is properly no antithetic of pure
reason。 For the only arena for such a struggle would be upon the field
of pure theology and psychology； but on this ground there can appear
no combatant whom we need to fear。 Ridicule and boasting can be his
only weapons； and these may be laughed at； as mere child's play。
This consideration restores to Reason her courage； for what source
of confidence could be found； if she； whose vocation it is to
destroy error； were at variance with herself and without any
reasonable hope of ever reaching a state of permanent repose？
Everything in nature is good for some purpose。 Even poisons are
serviceable； they destroy the evil effects of other poisons
generated in our system； and must always find a place in every
complete pharmacopoeia。 The objections raised against the fallacies
and sophistries of speculative reason； are objections given by the
nature of this reason itself； and must therefore have a destination
and purpose which can only be for the good of humanity。 For what
purpose has Providence raised many objects； in which we have the
deepest interest； so far above us； that we vainly try to cognize
them with certainty； and our powers of mental vision are rather
excited than satisfied by the glimpses we may chance to seize？ It is
very doubtful whether it is for our benefit to advance bold
affirmations regarding subjects involved in such obscurity； perhaps it
would even be detrimental to our best interests。 But it is undoubtedly
always beneficial to leave the investigating； as well as the
critical reason； in perfect freedom； and permit it to take charge of
its own interests； which are advanced as much by its limitation； as by
its extension of its views； and which always suffer by the
interference of foreign powers forcing it； against its natural
tendencies； to bend to certain preconceived designs。
Allow your opponent to say what he thinks reasonable； and combat him
only with the weapons of reason。 Have no anxiety for the practical
interests of humanity… these are never imperilled in a purely
speculative dispute。 Such a dispute serves merely to disclose the
antinomy of reason； which； as it has its source in the nature of
reason； ought to be thoroughly investigated。 Reason is benefited by
the examination of a subject on both sides； and its judgements are
corrected by being limited。 It is not the matter that may give
occasion to dispute； but the manner。 For it is perfectly permissible
to employ； in the presence of reason； the language of a firmly
rooted faith； even after we have been obliged to renounce all
pretensions to knowledge。
If we were to ask the dispassionate David Hume… a philosopher
endowed； in a degree that few are； with a well…balanced judgement：
What motive induced you to spend so much labour and thought in
undermining the consoling and beneficial persuasion that reason is
capable of assuring us of the existence； and presenting us with a
determinate conception of a Supreme Being？… his answer would be：
Nothing but the desire of teaching reason to know its own powers
better； and； at the same time； a dislike of the procedure by which
that faculty was compelled to support foregone conclusions； and
prevented from confessing the internal weaknesses which it cannot
but feel when it enters upon a rigid self…examination。 If； on the
other hand； we were to ask Priestley… a philosopher who had no taste
for transcendental speculation； but was entirely devoted to the
principles of empiricism… what his motives were for overturning
those two main pillars of religion… the doctrines of the freedom of
the will and the immortality of the soul （in his view the hope of a
future life is but the expectation of the miracle of resurrection）…
this philosopher； himself a zealous and pious teacher of religion；
could give no other answer than this： I acted in the interest of
reason； which always suffers； when certain objects are explained and
judged by a reference to other supposed laws than those of material
nature… the only laws which we know in a determinate manner