But if so many difficulties attend the argument a posteriori, said DEMEA,
had we not better adhere to that simple and sublime argument a priori,
which, by offering to us infallible demonstration, cuts off at once all
doubt and difficulty? By this argument, too, we may prove the infinity of
the Divine attributes, which, I am afraid, can never be ascertained with
certainty from any other topic. For how can an effect, which either is
finite, or, for aught we know, may be so; how can such an effect, I say,
prove an infinite cause? The unity too of the Divine Nature, it is very
difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to deduce merely from
contemplating the works of nature; nor will the uniformity alone of the
plan, even were it allowed, give us any assurance of that attribute.
Whereas the argument a priori ...
You seem to reason, DEMEA, interposed CLEANTHES, as if those advantages
and conveniences in the abstract argument were full proofs of its
solidity. But it is first proper, in my opinion, to determine what
argument of this nature you choose to insist on; and we shall afterwards,
from itself, better than from its useful consequences, endeavour to
determine what value we ought to put upon it.
The argument, replied DEMEA, which I would insist on, is the common one.
Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence; it being
absolutely impossible for any thing to produce itself, or be the cause of
its own existence. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we
must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate
cause at all; or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that
is necessarily existent: Now, that the first supposition is absurd, may
be thus proved. In the infinite chain or succession of causes and
effects, each single effect is determined to exist by the power and
efficacy of that cause which immediately preceded; but the whole eternal
chain or succession, taken together, is not determined or caused by any
thing; and yet it is evident that it requires a cause or reason, as much
as any particular object which begins to exist in time. The question is
still reasonable, why this particular succession of causes existed from
eternity, and not any other succession, or no succession at all. If there
be no necessarily existent being, any supposition which can be formed is
equally possible; nor is there any more absurdity in Nothing's having
existed from eternity, than there is in that succession of causes which
constitutes the universe. What was it, then, which determined Something
to exist rather than Nothing, and bestowed being on a particular
possibility, exclusive of the rest? External causes, there are supposed
to be none. Chance is a word without a meaning. Was it Nothing? But that
can never produce any thing. We must, therefore, have recourse to a
necessarily existent Being, who carries the REASON of his existence in
himself, and who cannot be supposed not to exist, without an express
contradiction. There is, consequently, such a Being; that is, there is a
Deity.
I shall not leave it to PHILO, said CLEANTHES, though I know that the
starting objections is his chief delight, to point out the weakness of
this metaphysical reasoning. It seems to me so obviously ill-grounded,
and at the same time of so little consequence to the cause of true piety
and religion, that I shall myself venture to show the fallacy of it.
I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in
pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any
arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies
a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a
contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as
non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a
contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is
demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am
willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.
It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent being; and this
necessity of his existence is attempted to be explained by asserting,
that if we knew his whole essence or nature, we should perceive it to be
as impossible for him not to exist, as for twice two not to be four. But
it is evident that this can never happen, while our faculties remain the
same as at present. It will still be possible for us, at any time, to
conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to exist; nor
can the mind ever lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain
always in being; in the same manner as we lie under a necessity of always
conceiving twice two to be four. The words, therefore, necessary
existence, have no meaning; or, which is the same thing, none that is
consistent.
But further, why may not the material universe be the necessarily
existent Being, according to this pretended explication of necessity? We
dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter; and for aught
we can determine, it may contain some qualities, which, were they known,
would make its non-existence appear as great a contradiction as that
twice two is five. I find only one argument employed to prove, that the
material world is not the necessarily existent Being: and this argument
is derived from the contingency both of the matter and the form of the
world. "Any particle of matter," it is said[]Dr. Clarke, "may be conceived
to be annihilated; and any form may be conceived to be altered. Such an
annihilation or alteration, therefore, is not impossible." But it seems
a great partiality not to perceive, that the same argument extends
equally to the Deity, so far as we have any conception of him; and that
the mind can at least imagine him to be non-existent, or his attributes
to be altered. It must be some unknown, inconceivable qualities, which
can make his non-existence appear impossible, or his attributes
unalterable: And no reason can be assigned, why these qualities may not
belong to matter. As they are altogether unknown and inconceivable, they
can never be proved incompatible with it.
Add to this, that in tracing an eternal succession of objects, it seems
absurd to inquire for a general cause or first author. How can any thing,
that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a
priority in time, and a beginning of existence?
In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by
that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is
the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the
uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct
countries into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is
performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on
the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each
individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think
it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of
the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause
of the parts.
Though the reasonings which you have urged, CLEANTHES, may well excuse
me, said PHILO, from starting any further difficulties, yet I cannot
forbear insisting still upon another topic. It is observed by
arithmeticians, that the products of 9, compose always either 9, or some
lesser product of 9, if you add together all the characters of which any
of the former products is composed. Thus, of 18, 27, 36, which are
products of 9, you make 9 by adding 1 to 8, 2 to 7, 3 to 6. Thus, 369 is
a product also of 9; and if you add 3, 6, and 9, you make 18, a lesser
product of 9. To a superficial observer, so wonderful a regularity may
be admired as the effect either of chance or design: but a skilful
algebraist immediately concludes it to be the work of necessity, and
demonstrates, that it must for ever result from the nature of these
numbers. Is it not probable, I ask, that the whole economy of the
universe is conducted by a like necessity, though no human algebra can
furnish a key which solves the difficulty? And instead of admiring the
order of natural beings, may it not happen, that, could we penetrate into
the intimate nature of bodies, we should clearly see why it was
absolutely impossible they could ever admit of any other disposition? So
dangerous is it to introduce this idea of necessity into the present
question! and so naturally does it afford an inference directly opposite
to the religious hypothesis!
But dropping all these abstractions, continued PHILO, and confining
ourselves to more familiar topics, I shall venture to add an observation,
that the argument a priori has seldom been found very convincing, except
to people of a metaphysical head, who have accustomed themselves to
abstract reasoning, and who, finding from mathematics, that the
understanding frequently leads to truth through obscurity, and, contrary
to first appearances, have transferred the same habit of thinking to
subjects where it ought not to have place. Other people, even of good
sense and the best inclined to religion, feel always some deficiency in
such arguments, though they are not perhaps able to explain distinctly
where it lies; a certain proof that men ever did, and ever will derive
their religion from other sources than from this species of reasoning.