Part 12 (2/2)
The doctrine that you may call an atheist anybody whose ideas about the Deity do not correspond with your own, is so largely acted upon by persons who are certainly not of Hu read hi his na to trace the theory of their practice to such a source
But on thinking the matter over, this theory see suspectedmoved by mere malice and viciousness of temper to call other folks atheists, when, after all, they have been obeying a purely intellectual sense of fitness As Huh, it is a s, the ideas of which are mutually exclusive, to rank such opposite opinions under the same denomination If the Jew says, that the Deity is absolute unity, and that it is sheer blasphemy to say that He ever became incarnate in the person of a man; and, if the Trinitarian says, that the Deity is numerically three as well as numerically one, and that it is sheer blasphemy to say that He did not so becoically held to deny the existence of the other's Deity Therefore; that each has a scientific right to call the other an atheist; and that, if he refrains, it is only on the ground of decency and good manners, which should restrain an honourable e, if custoree with Hume, then, it is, nevertheless, to be wished that he had not set the bad exa polytheists ”superstitious atheists” It probably did not occur to hiht justify the application of the sae to the Ultraression which may not be wholly unprofitable, Hume proceeds to shohat ories, and naturally accepted hero-worshi+p; and he sues of the evolution of theology as follows:--
”These then are the general principles of polytheis dependent on caprice or accident As the _causes_ which bestow happiness or eneral very little known and very uncertain, our anxious concern endeavours to attain a determinate idea of them: and finds no better expedient than to represent theents, like ourselves, only somewhat superior in power and wisdoents, and their proximity to human weakness, introduce the various distribution and division of their authority, and thereby give rise to allegory The same principles naturally deify , and produce hero-worshi+p; together with fabulous history and ical tradition, in all its wild and unaccountable forence is an object too refined for vulgar apprehension, men naturally affix it to some sensible representation; such as either the es, and pictures, which a e forms of its divinities”--(IV p 461)
How did the further stage of theology, monotheism, arise out of polytheiss froic:--
”Even at this day, and in Europe, ask any of the vulgar why he believes in an Omnipotent Creator of the world, he will never norant: He will not hold out his hand and bid you conteers, their bending all one way, the counterpoise which they receive from the thumb, the softness and fleshy parts of the inside of the hand, with all the other circumstances which render that member fit for the use to which it was destined To these he has been long accustomed; and he beholds them with listlessness and unconcern He will tell you of the sudden and unexpected death of such-a-one; the fall and bruise of such another; the excessive drought of this season; the cold and rains of another These he ascribes to the iood reasoners, are the chief difficulties in aduments for it
”We ar, in nations which have embraced the doctrine of theisrounds, they are never led into that opinion by any process of argu, enius and capacity
”It h men admit the existence of several limited deities, yet there is some one God, whom, in a particular manner, they make the object of their worshi+p and adoration They may either suppose, that, in the distribution of power and territory a the Gods, their nation was subjected to the jurisdiction of that particular deity; or, reducing heavenly objects to the s below, they istrate of the rest, who, though of the same nature, rules then exerts over his subjects and vassals Whether this God, therefore, be considered as their peculiar patron, or as the general sovereign of heaven, his votaries will endeavour, by every art, to insinuate the him to be pleased, like theeration which will be spared in their addresses to hient, they still invent new strains of adulation; and even he who outdoes his predecessor in swelling the titles of his divinity, is sure to be outdone by his successor in newer and more pompous epithets of praise Thus they proceed, till at last they arrive at infinity itself, beyond which there is no further progress; And it is well if, in striving to get further, and to represent a nificent simplicity, they run not into inexplicable ent nature of their deity, on which alone any rational worshi+p or adoration can be founded While they confine the, the Creator of the world, they coincide, by chance, with the principles of reason and true philosophy; though they are guided to that notion, not by reason, of which they are in a great measure incapable, but by the adulation and fears of the ar superstition”--(IV pp 463-6)
”Nay, if we should suppose, what never happens, that a popular religion were found, in which it was expressly declared, that nothing but ain the divine favour; if an order of priests were instituted to inculcate this opinion, in daily sermons, and with all the arts of persuasion; yet so inveterate are the people's prejudices, that, for want of some other superstition, they would make the very attendance on these serion, rather than place theue of Zaleucus' laws inspired not the Locrians, so far as we can learn, with any sounder notions of the measures of acceptance with the deity, than were familiar to the other Greeks”--(IV p 505)
It has been reularly devoid of local colour; of allusions to the scenes hich, he was fa Yet, surely, the Lowlands of Scotland were hts than the Zephyrean proe of John Knox peered froe left his pen Nay, ht not an acute German critic discern therein a reminiscence of that eminently Scottish institution, a ”Holy Fair”? where as Hus:--
” opens out his cauld harangues On practice and on ie the jars and barrels A lift that day
”What signifies his barren shi+ne Of esture line Are a' clean out of season
Like Socrates or Antonine, Or soan heathen, The moral ht that day”[34]
FOOTNOTES:
[28] In a note to the Essay on Superstition and Enthusiasm, Hume is careful to define what he means by this term ”By priests I understand only the pretenders to power and dominion, and to a superior sanctity of character, distinct froymen_, who are set apart to the care of sacred reater decency and order There is no rank of men more to be respected than the latter”--(III p 83)
[29] It is needless to quote the rest of the passage, though I cannot refrain fro that the recommendation which it contains, that a ”man of letters” should become a philosophical sceptic as ”the first andChristian,” though adopted and largely acted upon by many a champion of orthodoxy in these days, is questionable in taste, if it be meant as a jest, and more than questionable in morality, if it is to be taken in earnest To pretend that you believe any doctrine for no better reason than that you doubt everything else, would be dishonest, if it were not preposterous
[30] A perplexity which is increased rather than dies in a letter to Gilbert Elliot of Minto (March 10, 1751) Huiven you that I ue; whatever you can think of, to strengthen that side of the arguine I have to the other side crept in upon o that I burned an old manuscript book, wrote before I enty, which contained, page after page, the gradual progress of an with an anxious scent after arguments to confirm the coain dissipated, returned again; and it was a perpetual struggle of a restless iainst reason I could wish Cleanthes' argument could be so analysed as to be rendered quite forular The propensity of theand universal as that to believe in our senses and experience--will still, I am afraid, be esteemed a suspicious foundation 'Tis here I wish for your assistance We must endeavour to prove that this propensity is soures in the clouds, our faces in the moon, our passions and sentiments even in inaniht to be controlled, and can never be a legitiround of assent”
(Burton, _Life_, I pp 331-3) The picture of Huh to the popular conception of hi doubt for doubt's sake
[31] Kant euen stehen, so wurde es selbst ein Glied der Reihe derselben sein, und eben so wie die niederen Glieder, denen es vorgesetzt ist, noch fernere Untersuchungen wegen seines noch hoheren Grundes erfahren”--_Kritik_ Ed Hartenstein, p 422
[32] _Ie_ Natural philosophers
[33] Hu a criticisly on this point
[34] Burns published the _Holy Fair_ only ten years after Hume's death
CHAPTER IX
THE SOUL: THE DOCTRINE OF IMMORTALITY
Descartes taught that an absolute difference of kind separates matter, as that which possesses extension, from spirit, as that which thinks