On the Comparison so Often Made between Atheism2 and Idolatry.
It seems to me that, in the “Dictionnaire Encyclopédique,” a more powerful refutation might have been brought against the Jesuit Richeome’s opinion concerning atheists and idolaters — an opinion formerly4 maintained by St. Thomas, St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian — an opinion which Arnobius placed in a strong light when he said to the pagans, “Do you not blush to reproach us with contempt for your gods? Is it not better to believe in no god than to impute5 to them infamous6 actions?”— an opinion long before established by Plutarch, who stated that he would rather have it said that there was no Plutarch than that there was a Plutarch, inconstant, choleric7, and vindictive8 — an opinion, too, fortified9 by all the dialectical efforts of Bayle.
Such is the ground of dispute, placed in a very striking point of view by the Jesuit Richeome, and made still more specious10 by the way in which Bayle sets it off:
“There are two porters at the door of a house. You ask to speak to the master. He is not at home, answers one. He is at home, answers the other, but is busied in making false money, false contracts, daggers11, and poisons, to destroy those who have only accomplished12 his designs. The atheist3 resembles the former of these porters, the pagan the latter. It is then evident that the pagan offends the Divinity more grievously than the atheist.
With the permission of Father Richeome, and that of Bayle himself, this is not at all the state of the question. For the first porter to be like the atheist, he must say, not “My master is not here,” but “I have no master; he who you pretend is my master does not exist. My comrade is a blockhead to tell you that the gentleman is engaged in mixing poisons and wetting poniards to assassinate13 those who have executed his will. There is no such being in the world.”
Richeome, therefore, has reasoned very ill; and Bayle, in his rather diffuse15 discourses16, has so far forgotten himself as to do Richeome the honor of making a very lame18 comment upon him.
Plutarch seems to express himself much better, in declaring that he prefers those who say there is no Plutarch to those who assert that Plutarch is unfit for society. Indeed, of what consequence to him was its being said that he was not in the world? But it was of great consequence that his reputation should not be injured. With the Supreme19 Being it is otherwise.
Still Plutarch does not come to the real point in discussion. It is only asked who most offends the Supreme Being — he who denies Him, or he who disfigures Him? It is impossible to know, otherwise than by revelation, whether God is offended at the vain discourses which men hold about Him.
Philosophers almost always fall unconsciously into the ideas of the vulgar, in supposing that God is jealous of His glory, wrathful, and given to revenge, and in taking rhetorical figures for real ideas. That which interests the whole world is to know whether it is not better to admit a rewarding and avenging20 God, recompensing hidden good actions, and punishing secret crimes, than to admit no God at all.
Bayle exhausts himself in repeating all the infamous things imputed21 to the gods of antiquity22. His adversaries23 answer him by unmeaning commonplaces. The partisans24 and the enemies of Bayle have almost always fought without coming to close quarters. They all agree that Jupiter was an adulterer, Venus a wanton, Mercury a rogue25. But this, I conceive, ought not to be considered; the religion of the ancient Romans should be distinguished26 from Ovid’s “Metamorphoses.” It is quite certain that neither they nor even the Greeks ever had a temple dedicated27 to Mercury the Rogue, Venus the Wanton, or Jupiter the Adulterer.
The god whom the Romans called “Deus optimus maximus” — most good, most great — was not believed to have encouraged Clodius to lie with C?sar’s wife, nor C?sar to become the minion28 of King Nicomedes.
Cicero does not say that Mercury incited29 Verres to rob Sicily, though, in the fable30, Mercury had stolen Apollo’s cows. The real religion of the ancients was that Jupiter, most good and just, with the secondary divinities, punished perjury31 in the infernal regions. Thus, the Romans were long the most religious observers of their oaths. It was in no wise ordained32 that they should believe in Leda’s two eggs, in the transformation33 of Inachus’s daughter into a cow, or in Apollo’s love for Hyacinthus. Therefore it must not be said that the religion of Numa was dishonoring to the Divinity. So that, as but too often happens, there has been a long dispute about a chimera34.
Then, it is asked, can a people of atheists exist? I consider that a distinction must be made between the people, properly so called, and a society of philosophers above the people. It is true that, in every country, the populace require the strongest curb35; and that if Bayle had had but five or six hundred peasants to govern, he would not have failed to announce to them a rewarding and avenging God. But Bayle would have said nothing about them to the Epicureans, who were people of wealth, fond of quiet, cultivating all the social virtues37, and friendship in particular, shunning38 the dangers and embarrassments39 of public affairs — leading, in short, a life of ease and innocence40. The dispute, so far as it regards policy and society, seems to me to end here.
As for people entirely41 savage42, they can be counted neither among the theists nor among the atheists. To ask them what is their creed43 would be like asking them if they are for Aristotle or Democritus. They know nothing; they are no more atheists than they are peripatetics.
But, it may be insisted, that they live in society, though they have no God, and that, therefore, society may subsist44 without religion.
In this case I shall reply that wolves live so; and that an assemblage of barbarous cannibals, as you suppose them to be, is not a society. And, further, I will ask you if, when you have lent your money to any one of your society, you would have neither your debtor45, nor your attorney, nor your notary46, nor your judge, believe in a God?
§ II.
Modern Atheists. — Arguments of the Worshippers of God.
We are intelligent beings, and intelligent beings cannot have been formed by a blind, brute47, insensible being; there is certainly some difference between a clod and the ideas of Newton. Newton’s intelligence, then, came from some other intelligence.
When we see a fine machine, we say there is a good machinist, and that he has an excellent understanding. The world is assuredly an admirable machine; therefore there is in the world, somewhere or other, an admirable intelligence. This argument is old, but is not therefore the worse.
All animated49 bodies are composed of levers and pulleys, which act according to the laws of mechanics; of liquors, which are kept in perpetual circulation by the laws of hydrostatics; and the reflection that all these beings have sentiment which has no relation to their organization, fills us with wonder.
The motions of the stars, that of our little earth round the sun — all are operated according to the laws of the profoundest mathematics. How could it be that Plato, who knew not one of these laws — the eloquent50 but chimerical51 Plato, who said that the foundation of the earth was an equilateral triangle, and that of water a right-angled triangle — the strange Plato, who said there could be but five worlds, because there were but five regular bodies — how, I say, was it that Plato, who was not even acquainted with spherical52 trigonometry, had nevertheless so fine a genius, so happy an instinct, as to call God the Eternal Geometrician — to feel that there exists a forming Intelligence? Spinoza himself confesses it. It is impossible to controvert53 this truth, which surrounds us and presses us on all sides.
Argument of the Atheists.
I have, however, known refractory54 individuals, who have said that there is no forming intelligence, and that motion alone has formed all that we see and all that we are. They say boldly that the combination of this universe was possible because it exists; therefore it was possible for motion of itself to arrange it. Take four planets only — Mars, Venus, Mercury, and the Earth; let us consider them solely55 in the situations in which they now are; and let us see how many probabilities we have that motion will bring them again to those respective places. There are but twenty-four chances in this combination; that is, it is only twenty-four to one that these planets will not be found in the same situations with respect to one another. To these four globes add that of Jupiter; and it is then only a hundred and twenty to one that Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Mercury, and our globe will not be placed in the same positions in which we now see them.
Lastly, add Saturn56; and there will then be only seven hundred and twenty chances to one against putting these planets in their present arrangement, according to their given distances. It is, then, demonstrated that once, at least, in seven hundred and twenty cases, chance might place these planets in their present order.
Then take all the secondary planets, all their motions, all the beings that vegetate57, live, feel, think, act, on all these globes; you have only to increase the number of chances; multiply this number to all eternity58 — to what our weakness calls infinity59 — there will still be an unit in favor of the formation of the world, such as it is, by motion alone; therefore it is possible that, in all eternity, the motion of matter alone has produced the universe as it exists. Nay60, this combination must, in eternity, of necessity happen. Thus, say they, not only it is possible that the world is as it is by motion alone, but it was impossible that it should not be so after infinite combinations.
Answer.
All this supposition seems to me to be prodigiously61 chimerical, for two reasons: the first is, that in this universe there are intelligent beings, and you cannot prove it possible for motion alone to produce understanding. The second is, that, by your own confession63, the chances are infinity to unity64, that an intelligent forming cause produced the universe. Standing48 alone against infinity, a unit makes but a poor figure.
Again Spinoza himself admits this intelligence; it is the basis of his system. You have not read him, but you must read him. Why would you go further than he, and, through a foolish pride, plunge65 into the abyss where Spinoza dared not to descend66? Are you not aware of the extreme folly67 of saying that it is owing to a blind cause that the square of the revolution of one planet is always to the squares of the others as the cube of its distance is to the cubes of the distances of the others from the common centre? Either the planets are great geometricians, or the Eternal Geometrician has arranged the planets.
But where is the Eternal Geometrician? Is He in one place, or in all places, without occupying space? I know not. Has He arranged all things of His own substance? I know not. Is He immense, without quantity and without quality? I know not. All I know is, that we must adore Him and be just.
New Objection of a Modern Atheist.
Can it be said that the conformation of animals is according to their necessities? What are those necessities? Self-preservation68 and propagation. Now, is it astonishing that, of the infinite combinations produced by chance, those only have survived which had organs adapted for their nourishment69 and the continuation of their species? Must not all others necessarily have perished?
Answer.
This argument, taken from Lucretius, is sufficiently70 refuted by the sensation given to animals and the intelligence given to man. How, as has just been said in the preceding paragraph, should combinations produced by chance produce this sensation and this intelligence? Yes, doubtless, the members of animals are made for all their necessities with an incomprehensible art, and you have not the boldness to deny it. You do not mention it. You feel that you can say nothing in answer to this great argument which Nature brings against you. The disposition71 of the wing of a fly, or of the feelers of a snail72, is sufficient to confound you.
An Objection of Maupertuis.
The natural philosophers of modern times have done nothing more than extend these pretended arguments; this they have sometimes done even to minuteness and indecency. They have found God in the folds of a rhinoceros73’s hide; they might, with equal reason, have denied His existence on account of the tortoise’s shell.
Answer.
What reasoning! The tortoise and the rhinoceros, and all the different species, prove alike in their infinite varieties the same cause, the same design, the same end, which are preservation, generation, and death. Unity is found in this immense variety; the hide and the shell bear equal testimony74. What! deny God, because a shell is not like a skin! And journalists have lavished75 upon this coxcombry76 praises which they have withheld77 from Newton and Locke, both worshippers of the Divinity from thorough examination and conviction!
Another of Maupertuis’s Objections.
Of what service are beauty and fitness in the construction of a serpent? Perhaps, you say, it has uses of which we are ignorant. Let us then, at least, be silent, and not admire an animal which we know only by the mischief79 it does.
Answer.
Be you silent, also, since you know no more of its utility than myself; or acknowledge that, in reptiles80, everything is admirably proportioned. Some of them are venomous; you have been so too. The only subject at present under consideration is the prodigious62 art which has formed serpents, quadrupeds, birds, fishes, and bipeds. This art is evident enough. You ask, Why is not the serpent harmless? And why have you not been harmless? Why have you been a persecutor81? which, in a philosopher, is the greatest of crimes. This is quite another question; it is that of physical and moral evil. It has long been asked, Why are there so many serpents, and so many wicked men worse than serpents? If flies could reason, they would complain to God of the existence of spiders; but they would, at the same time, acknowledge what Minerva confessed to Arachne in the fable, that they arrange their webs in a wonderful manner.
We cannot, then, do otherwise than acknowledge an ineffable82 Intelligence, which Spinoza himself admitted. We must own that it is displayed as much in the meanest insect as in the planets. And with regard to moral and physical evil, what can be done or said? Let us console ourselves by the enjoyment83 of physical and moral good, and adore the Eternal Being, who has ordained the one and permitted the other.
One word more on this topic. Atheism is the vice78 of some intelligent men, and superstition84 is the vice of fools. And what is the vice of knaves85? — Hypocrisy86.
§ III.
Unjust Accusation87. — Justification88 of Vanini.
Formerly, whoever was possessed89 of a secret in any art was in danger of passing for a sorcerer; every new sect was charged with murdering infants in its mysteries; and every philosopher who departed from the jargon90 of the schools was accused of atheism by knaves and fanatics92, and condemned93 by blockheads.
Anaxagorus dares to assert that the sun is not conducted by Apollo, mounted in a chariot and four; he is condemned as an atheist, and compelled to fly.
Aristotle is accused of atheism by a priest, and not being powerful enough to punish his accuser, he retires to Chalcis. But the death of Socrates is the greatest blot94 on the page of Grecian history.
Aristophanes — he whom commentators95 admire because he was a Greek, forgetting that Socrates was also a Greek — Aristophanes was the first who accustomed the Athenians to regard Socrates as an atheist.
This comic poet, who is neither comic nor poetical96, would not, among us, have been permitted to exhibit his farces98 at the fair of St. Lawrence. He appears to me to be much lower and more despicable than Plutarch represents him. Let us see what the wise Plutarch says of this buffoon99: “The language of Aristophanes bespeaks100 his miserable101 quackery102; it is made up of the lowest and most disgusting puns; he is not even pleasing to the people; and to men of judgment103 and honor he is insupportable; his arrogance104 is intolerable, and all good men detest105 his malignity106.”
This, then, is the jack-pudding whom Madame Dacier, an admirer of Socrates, ventures to admire! Such was the man who, indirectly107, prepared the poison by which infamous judges put to death the most virtuous108 man in Greece.
The tanners, cobblers, and seamstresses of Athens applauded a farce97 in which Socrates was represented lifted in the air in a hamper109, announcing that there was no God, and boasting of having stolen a cloak while he was teaching philosophy. A whole people, whose government sanctioned such infamous licences, well deserved what has happened to them, to become slaves to the Romans, and, subsequently, to the Turks. The Russians, whom the Greeks of old would have called barbarians110, would neither have poisoned Socrates, nor have condemned Alcibiades to death.
We pass over the ages between the Roman commonwealth111 and our own times. The Romans, much more wise than the Greeks, never persecuted112 a philosopher for his opinions. Not so the barbarous nations which succeeded the Roman Empire. No sooner did the Emperor Frederick II. begin to quarrel with the popes, than he was accused of being an atheist, and being the author of the book of “The Three Impostors,” conjointly with his chancellor113 De Vincis.
Does our high-chancellor, de l’H?pital, declare against persecution114? He is immediately charged with atheism —“Homo doctus, sed vetus atheus.” There was a Jesuit, as much beneath Aristophanes as Aristophanes is beneath Homer — a wretch115, whose name has become ridiculous even among fanatics — the Jesuit Garasse, who found atheists everywhere. He bestows116 the name upon all who are the objects of his virulence117. He calls Theodore Beza an atheist. It was he, too, that led the public into error concerning Vanini.
The unfortunate end of Vanini does not excite our pity and indignation like that of Socrates, because Vanini was only a foreign pedant118, without merit; however, Vanini was not, as was pretended, an atheist; he was quite the contrary.
He was a poor Neapolitan priest, a theologian and preacher by trade, an outrageous119 disputer on quiddities and universals, and “utrum chim?ra bombinans in vacuo possit comedere secundas intentiones.” But there was nothing in him tending to atheism. His notion of God is that of the soundest and most approved theology: “God is the beginning and the end, the father of both, without need of either, eternal without time, in no one place, yet present everywhere. To him there is neither past nor future; he is within and without everything; he has created all, and governs all; he is immutable120, infinite without parts; his power is his will.” This is not very philosophical121, but it is the most approved theology.
Vanini prided himself on reviving Plato’s fine idea, adopted by Averro?s, that God had created a chain of beings from the smallest to the greatest, the last link of which was attached to his eternal throne; an idea more sublime122 than true, but as distant from atheism as being from nothing.
He travelled to seek his fortune and to dispute; but, unfortunately, disputation leads not to fortune; a man makes himself as many irreconcilable123 enemies as he finds men of learning or of pedantry124 to argue against. Vanini’s ill-fortune had no other source. His heat and rudeness in disputation procured125 him the hatred126 of some theologians; and having quarrelled with one Franconi, this Franconi, the friend of his enemies, charged him with being an atheist and teaching atheism.
Franconi, aided by some witnesses, had the barbarity, when confronted with the accused, to maintain what he had advanced. Vanini, on the stool, being asked what he thought of the existence of a God, answered that he, with the Church, adored a God in three persons. Taking a straw from the ground, “This,” said he, “is sufficient to prove that there is a creator.” He then delivered a very fine discourse17 on vegetation and motion, and the necessity of a Supreme Being, without whom there could be neither motion nor vegetation.
The president Grammont, who was then at Toulouse, repeats this discourse in his history of France, now so little known; and the same Grammont, through some unaccountable prejudice, asserts that Vanini said all this “through vanity, or through fear, rather than from inward conviction.”
On what could this atrocious, rash judgment of the president be founded? It is evident, from Vanini’s answer, that he could not but be acquitted127 of the charge of atheism. But what followed? This unfortunate foreign priest also dabbled128 in medicine. There was found in his house a large live toad129, which he kept in a vessel130 of water; he was forthwith accused of being a sorcerer. It was maintained that this toad was the god which he adored. An impious meaning was attributed to several passages of his books, a thing which is both common and easy, by taking objections for answers, giving some bad sense to a loose phrase, and perverting131 an innocent expression. At last, the faction132 which oppressed him forced from his judges the sentence which condemned him to die.
In order to justify133 this execution it was necessary to charge the unfortunate man with the most enormous of crimes. The grey friar — the very grey friar Marsenne, was so besotted as to publish that “Vanini set out from Naples, with twelve of his apostles, to convert the whole world to atheism.” What a pitiful tale! How should a poor priest have twelve men in his pay? How should he persuade twelve Neapolitans to travel at great expense, in order to spread this revolting doctrine134 at the peril135 of their lives? Would a king himself have it in his power to pay twelve preachers of atheism? No one before Father Marsenne had advanced so enormous an absurdity136. But after him it was repeated; the journals and historical dictionaries caught it, and the world, which loves the extraordinary, has believed the fable without examination.
Even Bayle, in his miscellaneous thoughts (Pensées Diverses), speaks of Vanini as of an atheist. He cites his example in support of his paradox137, that “a society of atheists might exist.” He assures us that Vanini was a man of very regular morals, and that he was a martyr138 to his philosophical opinions. On both these points he is equally mistaken. Vanini informs us in his “Dialogues,” written in imitation of Erasmus, that he had a mistress named Isabel. He was as free in his writings as in his conduct; but he was not an atheist.
A century after his death, the learned Lacroze, and he who took the name of Philaletes, endeavored to justify him. But as no one cares anything about the memory of an unfortunate Neapolitan, scarcely any one has read these apologies.
The Jesuit Hardouin, more learned and no less rash than Garasse, in his book entitled “Athei Detecti,” charges the Descartes, the Arnaulds, the Pascals, the Malebranches, with atheism. Happily, Vanini’s fate was not theirs.
§ IV.
A word on the question in morals, agitated139 by Bayle, “Whether a society of atheists can exist.” Here let us first observe the enormous self-contradictions of men in disputation. Those who have been most violent in opposing the opinion of Bayle, those who have denied with the greatest virulence the possibility of a society of atheists, are the very men who have since maintained with equal ardor140 that atheism is the religion of the Chinese government.
They have most assuredly been mistaken concerning the government of China; they had only to read the edicts of the emperors of that vast country, and they would have seen that those edicts are sermons, in which a Supreme Being — governing, avenging, and rewarding — is continually spoken of.
But, at the same time, they are no less deceived respecting the impossibility of a society of atheists; nor can I conceive how Bayle could forget a striking instance which might have rendered his cause victorious142.
In what does the apparent impossibility of a society of atheists consist? In this: It is judged that men without some restraint could not live together; that laws have no power against secret crimes; and that it is necessary to have an avenging God — punishing, in this world or in the next, such as escape human justice.
The laws of Moses, it is true, did not teach the doctrine of a life to come, did not threaten with chastisements after death, nor even teach the primitive143 Jews the immortality144 of the soul; but the Jews, far from being atheists, far from believing that they could elude145 the divine vengeance146, were the most religious of men. They believed not only in the existence of an eternal God, but that He was always present among them; they trembled lest they should be punished in themselves, their wives, their children, their posterity147 to the fourth generation. This was a very powerful check.
But among the Gentiles various sects148 had no restraint; the Skeptics doubted of everything; the Academics suspended their judgment on everything; the Epicureans were persuaded that the Divinity could not meddle149 in human affairs, and in their hearts admitted no Divinity. They were convinced that the soul is not a substance, but a faculty150 which is born and perishes with the body; consequently, they had no restraint but that of morality and honor. The Roman senators and knights151 were in reality atheists; for to men who neither feared nor hoped anything from them, the gods could not exist. The Roman senate, then, in the time of C?sar and Cicero, was in fact an assembly of atheists.
That great orator152, in his oration153 for Cluentius, says to the whole assembled senate: “What does he lose by death? We reject all the silly fables154 about the infernal regions. What, then, can death take from him? Nothing but the susceptibility of sorrow.”
Does not C?sar, wishing to save the life of his friend Catiline, threatened by the same Cicero, object that to put a criminal to death is not to punish him — that death is nothing — that it is but the termination of our ills — a moment rather fortunate than calamitous155? Did not Cicero and the whole senate yield to this reasoning? The conquerors156 and legislators of all the known world then, evidently, formed a society of men who feared nothing from the gods, but were real atheists.
Bayle next examines whether idolatry is more dangerous than atheism — whether it is a greater crime not to believe in the Divinity than to have unworthy notions of it; in this he thinks with Plutarch — that it is better to have no opinion than a bad opinion; but, without offence to Plutarch, it was infinitely157 better that the Greeks should fear Ceres, Neptune158, and Jupiter than that they should fear nothing at all. It is clear that the sanctity of oaths is necessary; and that those are more to be trusted who think a false oath will be punished, than those who think they may take a false oath with impunity159. It cannot be doubted that, in an organized society, it is better to have even a bad religion than no religion at all.
It appears then that Bayle should rather have examined whether atheism or fanaticism160 is the most dangerous. Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times the most to be dreaded161; for atheism inspires no sanguinary passion, but fanaticism does; atheism does not oppose crime, but fanaticism prompts to its commission. Let us suppose, with the author of the “Commentarium Rerum Gallicarum,” that the High-Chancellor de l’H?pital was an atheist; he made none but wise laws; he recommended only moderation and concord162. The massacres163 of St. Bartholomew were committed by fanatics. Hobbes passed for an atheist; yet he led a life of innocence and quiet, while the fanatics of his time deluged164 England, Scotland, and Ireland with blood. Spinoza was not only an atheist — he taught atheism; but assuredly he had no part in the judicial165 assassination166 of Barneveldt; nor was it he who tore in pieces the two brothers De Witt, and ate them off the gridiron.
Atheists are, for the most part, men of learning, bold but bewildered, who reason ill and, unable to comprehend the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of necessity.
The ambitious and the voluptuous167 have but little time to reason; they have other occupations than that of comparing Lucretius with Socrates. Such is the case with us and our time.
It was otherwise with the Roman senate, which was composed almost entirely of theoretical and practical atheists, that is, believing neither in Providence168 nor in a future state; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, men of pleasure, and ambitious men, who were all very dangerous, and who ruined the commonwealth. Under the emperors, Epicureanism prevailed. The atheists of the senate had been factious169 in the times of Sulla and of C?sar; in those of Augustus and Tiberius, they were atheistical170 slaves.
I should not wish to come in the way of an atheistical prince, whose interest it should be to have me pounded in a mortar171; I am quite sure that I should be so pounded. Were I a sovereign, I would not have to do with atheistical courtiers, whose interest it was to poison me; I should be under the necessity of taking an antidote172 every day. It is then absolutely necessary for princes and people that the idea of a Supreme Being — creating, governing, rewarding, and punishing — be profoundly engraved173 on their minds.
There are nations of atheists, says Bayle in his “Thoughts on Comets.” The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and many other small populations, have no god; they neither affirm nor deny that there is one; they have never heard of Him; tell them that there is one, and they will easily believe it; tell them that all is done by the nature of things, and they will believe you just the same. To pretend that they are atheists would be like saying they are anti-Cartesians. They are neither for Descartes nor against him; they are no more than children; a child is neither atheist nor deist; he is nothing.
From all this, what conclusion is to be drawn174? That atheism is a most pernicious monster in those who govern; that it is the same in the men of their cabinet, since it may extend itself from the cabinet to those in office; that, although less to be dreaded than fanaticism, it is almost always fatal to virtue36. And especially, let it be added, that there are fewer atheists now than ever — since philosophers have become persuaded that there is no vegetative being without a germ, no germ without a design, etc., and that the corn in our fields does not spring from rottenness.
Unphilosophical geometricians have rejected final causes, but true philosophers admit them; and, as it is elsewhere observed, a catechist announces God to children, and Newton demonstrates Him to the wise.
If there be atheists, who are to blame? Who but the mercenary tyrants175 of our souls, who, while disgusting us with their knavery176, urge some weak spirits to deny the God whom such monsters dishonor? How often have the people’s bloodsuckers forced overburdened citizens to revolt against the king!
Men who have fattened177 on our substance, cry out to us: “Be persuaded that an ass14 spoke141; believe that a fish swallowed a man, and threw him up three days after, safe and sound, on the shore; doubt not that the God of the universe ordered one Jewish prophet to eat excrement178, and another to buy two prostitutes, and have bastards179 by them;” such are the words put into the mouth of the God of purity and truth! Believe a hundred things either visibly abominable180 or mathematically impossible; otherwise the God of Mercy will burn you in hell-fire, not only for millions of millions of ages, but for all eternity, whether you have a body or have not a body.
These brutal181 absurdities182 are revolting to rash and weak minds, as well as to firm and wise ones. They say: “Our teachers represent God to us as the most insensate and barbarous of all beings; therefore, there is no God.” But they ought to say, “Our teachers represent God as furious and ridiculous, therefore God is the reverse of what they describe Him; He is as wise and good as they say He is foolish and wicked.” Thus do the wise decide. But, if a fanatic91 hears them, he denounces them to a magistrate183 — a sort of priest’s officer, which officer has them burned alive, thinking that he is therein imitating and avenging the Divine Majesty184 which he insults.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
sect
|
|
| n.派别，宗教，学派，派系 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
atheism
|
|
| n.无神论，不信神 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
atheist
|
|
| n.无神论者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
formerly
|
|
| adv.从前，以前 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
impute
|
|
| v.归咎于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
infamous
|
|
| adj.声名狼藉的，臭名昭著的，邪恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
choleric
|
|
| adj.易怒的，性情暴躁的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
vindictive
|
|
| adj.有报仇心的，怀恨的，惩罚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
fortified
|
|
| adj. 加强的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
specious
|
|
| adj.似是而非的；adv.似是而非地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
daggers
|
|
| 匕首，短剑( dagger的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
assassinate
|
|
| vt.暗杀，行刺，中伤 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
ass
|
|
| n.驴；傻瓜，蠢笨的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
diffuse
|
|
| v.扩散；传播；adj.冗长的；四散的，弥漫的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
discourses
|
|
| 论文( discourse的名词复数 )； 演说； 讲道； 话语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
discourse
|
|
| n.论文，演说；谈话；话语；vi.讲述，著述 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
lame
|
|
| adj.跛的，(辩解、论据等)无说服力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
avenging
|
|
| adj.报仇的，复仇的v.为…复仇，报…之仇( avenge的现在分词 )；为…报复 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
imputed
|
|
| v.把（错误等）归咎于( impute的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
adversaries
|
|
| n.对手，敌手( adversary的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
partisans
|
|
| 游击队员( partisan的名词复数 )； 党人； 党羽； 帮伙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
rogue
|
|
| n.流氓；v.游手好闲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
distinguished
|
|
| adj.卓越的，杰出的，著名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
dedicated
|
|
| adj.一心一意的；献身的；热诚的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
minion
|
|
| n.宠仆；宠爱之人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
incited
|
|
| 刺激，激励，煽动( incite的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
fable
|
|
| n.寓言；童话；神话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
perjury
|
|
| n.伪证；伪证罪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
ordained
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
transformation
|
|
| n.变化；改造；转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
chimera
|
|
| n.神话怪物；梦幻 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
curb
|
|
| n.场外证券市场，场外交易；vt.制止，抑制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
virtue
|
|
| n.德行，美德；贞操；优点；功效，效力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
virtues
|
|
| 美德( virtue的名词复数 )； 德行； 优点； 长处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
shunning
|
|
| v.避开，回避，避免( shun的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
embarrassments
|
|
| n.尴尬( embarrassment的名词复数 )；难堪；局促不安；令人难堪或耻辱的事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
innocence
|
|
| n.无罪；天真；无害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
savage
|
|
| adj.野蛮的；凶恶的，残暴的；n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
subsist
|
|
| vi.生存，存在，供养 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
debtor
|
|
| n.借方，债务人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
notary
|
|
| n.公证人，公证员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
brute
|
|
| n.野兽，兽性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
eloquent
|
|
| adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
chimerical
|
|
| adj.荒诞不经的，梦幻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
spherical
|
|
| adj.球形的；球面的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
controvert
|
|
| v.否定；否认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
refractory
|
|
| adj.倔强的，难驾驭的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
Saturn
|
|
| n.农神，土星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
vegetate
|
|
| v.无所事事地过活 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
eternity
|
|
| n.不朽，来世；永恒，无穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
infinity
|
|
| n.无限，无穷，大量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
nay
|
|
| adv.不；n.反对票，投反对票者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
prodigiously
|
|
| adv.异常地，惊人地，巨大地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
prodigious
|
|
| adj.惊人的，奇妙的；异常的；巨大的；庞大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
confession
|
|
| n.自白，供认，承认 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
plunge
|
|
| v.跳入，(使)投入，(使)陷入；猛冲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
descend
|
|
| vt./vi.传下来，下来，下降 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
folly
|
|
| n.愚笨，愚蠢，蠢事，蠢行，傻话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
nourishment
|
|
| n.食物，营养品；营养情况 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
disposition
|
|
| n.性情，性格；意向，倾向；排列，部署 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
snail
|
|
| n.蜗牛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
rhinoceros
|
|
| n.犀牛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
lavished
|
|
| v.过分给予，滥施( lavish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
coxcombry
|
|
| n.（男子的）虚浮，浮夸，爱打扮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
77
withheld
|
|
| withhold过去式及过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
mischief
|
|
| n.损害，伤害，危害；恶作剧，捣蛋，胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
reptiles
|
|
| n.爬行动物，爬虫( reptile的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
persecutor
|
|
| n. 迫害者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
ineffable
|
|
| adj.无法表达的，不可言喻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
enjoyment
|
|
| n.乐趣；享有；享用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
knaves
|
|
| n.恶棍，无赖( knave的名词复数 )；（纸牌中的）杰克 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
hypocrisy
|
|
| n.伪善，虚伪 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
accusation
|
|
| n.控告，指责，谴责 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
justification
|
|
| n.正当的理由；辩解的理由 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
jargon
|
|
| n.术语，行话 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
fanatic
|
|
| n.狂热者，入迷者；adj.狂热入迷的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
fanatics
|
|
| 狂热者，入迷者( fanatic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
blot
|
|
| vt.弄脏（用吸墨纸）吸干；n.污点，污渍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
commentators
|
|
| n.评论员( commentator的名词复数 )；时事评论员；注释者；实况广播员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
poetical
|
|
| adj.似诗人的；诗一般的；韵文的；富有诗意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
farce
|
|
| n.闹剧，笑剧，滑稽戏；胡闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
farces
|
|
| n.笑剧( farce的名词复数 )；闹剧；笑剧剧目；作假的可笑场面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
buffoon
|
|
| n.演出时的丑角 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
bespeaks
|
|
| v.预定( bespeak的第三人称单数 )；订（货）；证明；预先请求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
quackery
|
|
| n.庸医的医术，骗子的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
judgment
|
|
| n.审判；判断力，识别力，看法，意见 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
arrogance
|
|
| n.傲慢，自大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
detest
|
|
| vt.痛恨，憎恶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
malignity
|
|
| n.极度的恶意，恶毒；（病的）恶性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
indirectly
|
|
| adv.间接地，不直接了当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
virtuous
|
|
| adj.有品德的，善良的，贞洁的，有效力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
hamper
|
|
| vt.妨碍，束缚，限制；n.(有盖的)大篮子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
barbarians
|
|
| n.野蛮人( barbarian的名词复数 )；外国人；粗野的人；无教养的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
commonwealth
|
|
| n.共和国，联邦，共同体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
persecuted
|
|
| （尤指宗教或政治信仰的）迫害(~sb. for sth.)( persecute的过去式和过去分词 )； 烦扰，困扰或骚扰某人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
chancellor
|
|
| n.(英)大臣；法官；(德、奥)总理；大学校长 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
persecution
|
|
| n. 迫害,烦扰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
wretch
|
|
| n.可怜的人，不幸的人；卑鄙的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
bestows
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
virulence
|
|
| n.毒力，毒性；病毒性；致病力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
pedant
|
|
| n.迂儒；卖弄学问的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
outrageous
|
|
| adj.无理的，令人不能容忍的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
immutable
|
|
| adj.不可改变的，永恒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
philosophical
|
|
| adj.哲学家的，哲学上的，达观的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
sublime
|
|
| adj.崇高的，伟大的；极度的，不顾后果的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
irreconcilable
|
|
| adj.（指人）难和解的，势不两立的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
pedantry
|
|
| n.迂腐，卖弄学问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
procured
|
|
| v.（努力）取得， （设法）获得( procure的过去式和过去分词 )；拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
acquitted
|
|
| 宣判…无罪( acquit的过去式和过去分词 )； 使（自己）作出某种表现 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
dabbled
|
|
| v.涉猎( dabble的过去式和过去分词 )；涉足；浅尝；少量投资 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
toad
|
|
| n.蟾蜍，癞蛤蟆 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
perverting
|
|
| v.滥用( pervert的现在分词 )；腐蚀；败坏；使堕落 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
faction
|
|
| n.宗派，小集团；派别；派系斗争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
paradox
|
|
| n.似乎矛盾却正确的说法；自相矛盾的人(物) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
martyr
|
|
| n.烈士，殉难者；vt.杀害，折磨，牺牲 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
agitated
|
|
| adj.被鼓动的，不安的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
ardor
|
|
| n.热情，狂热 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
primitive
|
|
| adj.原始的；简单的；n.原(始)人，原始事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
immortality
|
|
| n.不死，不朽 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
elude
|
|
| v.躲避，困惑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
vengeance
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，复仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
posterity
|
|
| n.后裔，子孙，后代 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
sects
|
|
| n.宗派，教派( sect的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
meddle
|
|
| v.干预，干涉，插手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
faculty
|
|
| n.才能；学院，系；(学院或系的)全体教学人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
knights
|
|
| 骑士； （中古时代的）武士( knight的名词复数 )； 骑士； 爵士； （国际象棋中）马 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
orator
|
|
| n.演说者，演讲者，雄辩家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
oration
|
|
| n.演说，致辞，叙述法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
fables
|
|
| n.寓言( fable的名词复数 )；神话，传说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
calamitous
|
|
| adj.灾难的，悲惨的；多灾多难；惨重 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
conquerors
|
|
| 征服者，占领者( conqueror的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
infinitely
|
|
| adv.无限地，无穷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
Neptune
|
|
| n.海王星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
impunity
|
|
| n.(惩罚、损失、伤害等的)免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
fanaticism
|
|
| n.狂热，盲信 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
dreaded
|
|
| adj.令人畏惧的；害怕的v.害怕，恐惧，担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
concord
|
|
| n.和谐；协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
massacres
|
|
| 大屠杀( massacre的名词复数 )； 惨败 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
deluged
|
|
| v.使淹没( deluge的过去式和过去分词 )；淹没；被洪水般涌来的事物所淹没；穷于应付 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
judicial
|
|
| adj.司法的，法庭的，审判的，明断的，公正的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
assassination
|
|
| n.暗杀；暗杀事件 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
voluptuous
|
|
| adj.肉欲的，骄奢淫逸的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
providence
|
|
| n.深谋远虑，天道，天意；远见；节约；上帝 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
factious
|
|
| adj.好搞宗派活动的，派系的，好争论的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
atheistical
|
|
| adj.无神论（者）的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
171
mortar
|
|
| n.灰浆，灰泥；迫击炮；v.把…用灰浆涂接合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
antidote
|
|
| n.解毒药，解毒剂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
engraved
|
|
| v.在（硬物）上雕刻（字，画等）( engrave的过去式和过去分词 )；将某事物深深印在（记忆或头脑中） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
tyrants
|
|
| 专制统治者( tyrant的名词复数 )； 暴君似的人； （古希腊的）僭主； 严酷的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
knavery
|
|
| n.恶行，欺诈的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
fattened
|
|
| v.喂肥( fatten的过去式和过去分词 )；养肥（牲畜）；使（钱）增多；使（公司）升值 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
178
excrement
|
|
| n.排泄物，粪便 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
179
bastards
|
|
| 私生子( bastard的名词复数 )； 坏蛋； 讨厌的事物； 麻烦事 （认为别人走运或不幸时说）家伙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
180
abominable
|
|
| adj.可厌的，令人憎恶的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
181
brutal
|
|
| adj.残忍的，野蛮的，不讲理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
182
absurdities
|
|
| n.极端无理性( absurdity的名词复数 )；荒谬；谬论；荒谬的行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
183
magistrate
|
|
| n.地方行政官，地方法官，治安官 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
184
majesty
|
|
| n.雄伟，壮丽，庄严，威严；最高权威，王权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |