Dialogues concerning natural religion: By David Hume, Esq;.
Hume, David, 1711-1776.


BUT to show you still more inconveniencies, continued PHILO, in your Anthropomorphism; please to take a new survey of your principles. Like effects prove like causes This is the ex|perimental argument; and this, you say too, is the sole theological argument. Now it is certain, that the liker the effects are, which are seen, and the liker the causes, which are inferred, the stronger is the argument. Every departure on ei|ther side diminishes the probability, and renders the experiment less conclusive. You cannot doubt of the principle: neither ought you to re|ject its consequences.

All the new discoveries in astronomy, which prove the immense grandeur and magnificence of the works of Nature, are so many additional ar|guments for a Deity, according to the true sy|stem of Theism: but according to your hypothe|sis of experimental Theism, they become so many objections, by removing the effect still far|ther from all resemblance to the effects of human Page  58 art and contrivance.* For if LUCRETIUS*, even following the old system of the world, could ex|claim,

Quis regere immensi summam, quis habere profundi
Indu manu validas potis est moderanter habenas?
Quis pariter coelos omnes convertere? et omnes
Ignibus aetheriis terras suffire feraces?
Omnibus inque locis esse omni tempore praesto?

If Tully esteemed this reasoning so natural as to put it into the mouth of his EPICUREAN. Quibus euim oculis animi intueri potuit vester Plato fabricam illam tanti operis, qua construi a Deo atque aedificari mundum facit? quae mo|litio? quae ferramenta? qui vectes? quae ma|chinae? qui ministri tanti muneris fuerunt? quemadmodum autem obedire et parere volun|tati architecti aer, ignis, aqua, terra potue|runt? If this argument, I say, had any force in former ages; how much greater must it have at present; when the bounds of Nature are so in|finitely enlarged, and such a magnificent scene is opened to us? It is still more unreasonable to form our idea of so unlimited a cause from our experience of the narrow productions of human design and invention.

The discoveries by microscopes, as they open a new universe in miniature, are still objections, Page  59 according to you; arguments, according to me. The farther we push our researches of this kind, we are still led to infer the universal cause of all to be vastly different from mankind, or from any object of human experience and observation.

And what say you to the discoveries in anatomy, chymistry, botany? — These surely are no ob|jections, replied CLEANTHES: they only disco|ver new instances of art and contrivance. It is still the image of mind reflected on us from innu|merable objects. Add, a mind like the hu|man, said PHILO. I know of no other, re|plied CLEANTHES. And the liker the bet|ter, insisted PHILO. To be sure, said CLE|ANTHES.

Now, CLEANTHES, said PHILO, with an air of alacrity and triumph, mark the consequences. First, By this method of reasoning, you renounce all claim to infinity in any of the attributes of the Deity. For as the cause ought only to be propor|tioned to the effect, and the effect, so far as it falls under our cognisance, is not infinite; what pretensions have we, upon your suppositions, to ascribe that attribute to the divine Being? You will still insist, that, by removing him so much from all similarity to human creatures, we give into the most arbitrary hypothesis, and at the same time, weaken all proofs of his existence.

Secondly, You have no reason, on your theory, for ascribing perfection to the Deity, even in his finite capacity; or for supposing him free from Page  60 every error, mistake, or incoherence in his un|dertakings. There are many inexplicable diffi|culties in the works of Nature, which, if we al|low a perfect author to be proved a priori, are easily solved, and become only seeming difficul|ties, from the narrow capacity of man, who can|not trace infinite relations. But according to your method of reasoning, these difficulties become all real; and perhaps will be insisted on, as new in|stances of likeness to human art and contrivance. At least, you must acknowledge, that it is impos|sible for us to tell, from our limited views, whe|ther this system contains any great faults, or de|serves any considerable praise, if compared to other possible, and even real systems. Could a peasant, if the AENEID were read to him, pro|nounce that poem to be absolutely faultless, or even assign to it its proper rank among the pro|ductions of human wit; he, who had never seen any other production?

But were this world ever so perfect a produc|tion, it must still remain uncertain, whether all the excellencies of the work can justly be ascri|bed to the workman. If we survey a ship, what an exalted idea must we form of the ingenuity of the carpenter, who framed so complicated useful and beautiful a machine? And what surprise must we feel, when we find him a stupid mechanic, who imitated others, and copied an art, which, through a long succession of ages, after multiplied trials, mistakes, corrections, deliberations, and Page  61 controversies, had been gradually improving? Many worlds might have been botched and bun|gled, throughout an eternity, ere this system was struck out: much labour lost: many fruit|less trials made: and a slow, but continued im|provement carried on during infinite ages in the art of world-making. In such subjects, who can determine, where the truth; nay, who can con|jecture where the probability, lies; amidst a great number of hypotheses which may be proposed, and a still greater number, which may be ima|gined?

And what shadow of an argument, continued PHILO, can you produce, from your hypothesis, to prove the unity of the Deity? A great num|ber of men join in building a house or ship, in rearing a city, in framing a commonwealth: why may not several deities combine in contriving and framing a world? This is only so much greater similarity to human affairs. By sharing the work among several, we may so much farther limit the attributes of each, and get rid of that extensive power and knowledge, which must be supposed in one deity, and which, according to you, can on|ly serve to weaken the proof of his existence. And if such foolish, such vicious creatures as man can yet often unite in framing and executing one plan; how much more those deities or daemons, whom we may suppose several degrees more per|fect?

To multiply causes, without necessity, is in|deed Page  62 contrary to true philosophy: but this prin|ciple applies not to the present case. Were one deity antecedently proved by your theory, who were possessed of every attribute, requisite to the production of the universe; it would be needless, I own (though not absurd) to suppose any other deity existent. But while it is still a question, Whether all these attributes are united in one subject, or dispersed among several independent beings: by what phenomena in nature can we pretend to decide the controversy? Where we see a body raised in a scale, we are sure that there is in the opposite scale, however concealed from sight, some counterpoising weight equal to it: but it is still allowed to doubt, whether that weight be an aggregate of several distinct bodies, or one uniform united mass. And if the weight requisite very much exceeds any thing which we have ever seen conjoined in any single body, the former supposition becomes still more probable and natural. An intelligent being of such vast power and capacity, as is necessary to produce the universe, or, to speak in the language of ancient philosophy, so prodigious an animal, exceeds all analogy and even comprehension.

But farther, CLEANTHES; men are mortal, and renew their species by generation; and this is common to all living creatures. The two great sexes of male and female, says MILTON, ani|mate the world. Why must this circumstance, so universal, so essential, be excluded from those Page  63 numerous and limited deities? Behold then the theogony of ancient times brought back upon us.

And why not become a perfect Anthropomor|phite? Why not assert the deity or deities to be corporeal, and to have eyes, a nose, mouth, ears, &c.? EPICURUS maintained, that no man had ever seen reason but in a human figure; therefore the gods must have a human figure. And this argument, which is deservedly so much ridiculed by CICERO, becomes, according to you, solid and philosophical.

In a word, CLEANTHES, a man, who follows your hypothesis, is able, perhaps, to assert, or conjecture, that the universe, sometime, arose from something like design: but beyond that po|sition he cannot ascertain one single circumstance, and is left afterwards to fix every point of his the|ology, by the utmost licence of fancy and hypo|thesis. This world, for aught he knows, is very faulty and imperfect, compared to a superior standard; and was only the first rude essay of some infant deity, who afterwards abandoned it, ashamed of his lame performance: it is the work only of some dependent, inferior deity; and is the object of derision to his superiors: it is the production of old age and dotage in some super|annuated deity; and ever since his death, has run on at adventures, from the first impulse and active force, which it received from him. You justly give signs of horror, DEMEA, at these strange suppositions: but these, and a thousand Page  64 more of the same kind, are CLEANTHES's sup|positions, not mine. From the moment the attri|butes of the Deity are supposed finite, all these have place. And I cannot, for my part, think, that so wild and unsettled a system of theology is, in any respect, preferable to none at all.

These suppositions I absolutely disown, cried CLEANTHES: they strike me, however, with no horror; especially, when proposed in that ram|bling way, in which they drop from you. On the contrary, they give me pleasure, when I see, that, by the utmost indulgence of your imagina|tion, you never get rid of the hypothesis of de|sign in the universe; but are obliged, at every turn, to have recourse to it. To this concession I adhere steadily; and this I regard as a sufficient foundation for religion.