WHY A CAUSE IS ALWAYS NECESSARY.
To begin with the first question concerning the necessity of a cause:
'Tis a general maxim in philosophy, that _whatever begins to exist,
must have a cause of existence_. This is commonly taken for granted in
all reasonings, without any proof given or demanded. 'Tis supposed to
be founded on intuition, and to be one of those maxims which, though
they may be denied with the lips, 'tis impossible for men in their
hearts really to doubt of. But if we examine this maxim by the idea of
knowledge above explained, we shall discover in it no mark of any such
intuitive certainty; but on the contrary shall find, that 'tis of a
nature quite foreign to that species of conviction.
All certainty arises from the comparison of ideas, and from the
discovery of such relations as are unalterable, so long as the ideas
continue the same. These relations are _resemblance, proportions in
quantity and number, degrees of any quality, and contrariety_; none
of which are implied in this proposition, _Whatever has a beginning
has also a cause of existence_. That proposition therefore is not
intuitively certain. At least any one, who would assert it to be
intuitively certain, must deny these to be the only infallible
relations, and must find some other relation of that kind to be implied
in it; which it will then be time enough to examine.
But here is an argument, which proves at once, that the foregoing
proposition is neither intuitively nor demonstrably certain. We can
never demonstrate the necessity of a cause to every new existence, or
new modification of existence, without showing at the same time the
impossibility there is, that any thing can ever begin to exist without
some productive principle; and where the latter proposition cannot be
proved, we must despair of ever being able to prove the former. Now
that the latter proposition is utterly incapable of a demonstrative
proof, we may satisfy ourselves by considering, that as all distinct
ideas are separable from each other, and as the ideas of cause and
effect are evidently distinct, 'twill be easy for us to conceive
any object to be non-existent this moment, and existent the next,
without conjoining to it the distinct idea of a cause or productive
principle. The separation therefore of the idea of a cause from that of
a beginning of existence, is plainly possible for the imagination; and
consequently the actual separation of these objects is so far possible,
that it implies no contradiction nor absurdity; and is therefore
incapable of being refuted by any reasoning from mere ideas, without
which 'tis impossible to demonstrate the necessity of a cause.
Accordingly, we shall find upon examination, that every demonstration,
which has been produced for the necessity of a cause, is fallacious
and sophistical. All the points of time and place, say some
philosophers,[3] in which we can suppose any object to begin to
exist, are in themselves equal; and unless there be some cause, which
is peculiar to one time and to one place, and which by that means
determines and fixes the existence, it must remain in eternal suspense;
and the object can never begin to be, for want of something to fix
its beginning. But I ask, is there any more difficulty in supposing
the time and place to be fixed without a cause, than to suppose the
existence to be determined in that manner! The first question that
occurs on this subject is always, _whether_ the object shall exist
or not: the next, _when_ and _where_ it shall begin to exist. If the
removal of a cause be intuitively absurd in the one case, it must be so
in the other: and if that absurdity be not clear without a proof in the
one case, it will equally require one in the other. The absurdity then
of the one supposition can never be a proof of that of the other; since
they are both upon the same footing, and must stand or fall by the same
reasoning.
The second argument,[4] which I find used on this head, labours under
an equal difficulty. Every thing, 'tis said, must have a cause; for if
any thing wanted a cause, _it_ would produce _itself_, that is, exist
before it existed, which is impossible. But this reasoning is plainly
unconclusive; because it supposes that, in our denial of a cause, we
still grant what we expressly deny, viz. that there must be a cause;
which therefore is taken to be the object itself; and _that_, no doubt,
is an evident contradiction. But to say that any thing is produced, or,
to express myself more properly, comes into existence, without a cause,
is not to affirm that 'tis itself its own cause; but, on the contrary,
in excluding all external causes, excludes _a fortiori_ the thing
itself which is created. An object that exists absolutely without any
cause, certainly is not its own cause; and when you assert, that the
one follows from the other, you suppose the very point in question,
and take it for granted, that 'tis utterly impossible any thing can
ever begin to exist without a cause, but that, upon the exclusion of
one productive principle, we must still have recourse to another.
'Tis exactly the same case with the third argument,[5] which has
been employed to demonstrate the necessity of a cause. Whatever is
produced without any cause, is produced by _nothing_; or, in other
words, has nothing for its cause. But nothing can never be a cause, no
more than it can be something, or equal to two right angles. By the
same intuition, that we perceive nothing not to be equal to two right
angles, or not to be something, we perceive, that it can never be a
cause; and consequently must perceive, that every object has a real
cause of its existence.
I believe it will not be necessary to employ many words in showing the
weakness of this argument, after what I have said of the foregoing.
They are all of them founded on the same fallacy, and are derived from
the same turn of thought. 'Tis sufficient only to observe, that when
we exclude all causes we really do exclude them, and neither suppose
nothing nor the object itself to be the causes of the existence;
and consequently can draw no argument from the absurdity of these
suppositions to prove the absurdity of that exclusion. If every thing
must have a cause, it follows, that, upon the exclusion of other
causes, we must accept of the object itself or of nothing as causes.
But 'tis the very point in question, whether every thing must have a
cause or not; and therefore, according to all just reasoning, it ought
never to be taken for granted.
They are still more frivolous who say, that every effect must have a
cause, because 'tis implied in the very idea of effect. Every effect
necessarily presupposes a cause; effect being a relative term, of which
cause is a correlative. But this does not prove that every being must
be preceded by a cause; no more than it follows, because every husband
must have a wife, that therefore every man must be married. The true
state of the question is, whether every object which begins to exist,
must owe its existence to a cause; and this I assert neither to be
intuitively nor demonstratively certain, and hope to have proved it
sufficiently by the foregoing arguments.
Since it is not from knowledge or any scientific reasoning, that we
derive the opinion of the necessity of a cause to every new production,
that opinion must necessarily arise from observation and experience.
The next question, then, should naturally be, _how experience gives
rise to such a principle_? But as I find it will be more convenient
to sink this question in the following, _why we conclude, that such
particular causes must necessarily have such particular effects, and
why we form an inference from one to another_? we shall make that the
subject of our future inquiry. 'Twill, perhaps, be found in the end,
that the same answer will serve for both questions.
[3] Mr Hobbes.
[4] Dr Clarke and others.
[5] Mr Locke.