Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion | Page 9

is now in a manner avowed, by all pretenders to
reasoning and philosophy, that Atheist and Sceptic are almost synonymous. And as it is
certain that no man is in earnest when he professes the latter principle, I would fain hope
that there are as few who seriously maintain the former.
Don't you remember, said PHILO, the excellent saying of LORD BACON on this head?
That a little philosophy, replied CLEANTHES, makes a man an Atheist: A great deal
converts him to religion. That is a very judicious remark too, said PHILO. But what I
have in my eye is another passage, where, having mentioned DAVID's fool, who said in
his heart there is no God, this great philosopher observes, that the Atheists nowadays
have a double share of folly; for they are not contented to say in their hearts there is no
God, but they also utter that impiety with their lips, and are thereby guilty of multiplied
indiscretion and imprudence. Such people, though they were ever so much in earnest,
cannot, methinks, be very formidable.
But though you should rank me in this class of fools, I cannot forbear communicating a
remark that occurs to me, from the history of the religious and irreligious scepticism with
which you have entertained us. It appears to me, that there are strong symptoms of
priestcraft in the whole progress of this affair. During ignorant ages, such as those which
followed the dissolution of the ancient schools, the priests perceived, that Atheism,
Deism, or heresy of any kind, could only proceed from the presumptuous questioning of
received opinions, and from a belief that human reason was equal to every thing.
Education had then a mighty influence over the minds of men, and was almost equal in
force to those suggestions of the senses and common understanding, by which the most
determined sceptic must allow himself to be governed. But at present, when the influence

of education is much diminished, and men, from a more open commerce of the world,
have learned to compare the popular principles of different nations and ages, our
sagacious divines have changed their whole system of philosophy, and talk the language
of STOICS, PLATONISTS, and PERIPATETICS, not that of PYRRHONIANS and
ACADEMICS. If we distrust human reason, we have now no other principle to lead us
into religion. Thus, sceptics in one age, dogmatists in another; whichever system best
suits the purpose of these reverend gentlemen, in giving them an ascendant over mankind,
they are sure to make it their favourite principle, and established tenet.
It is very natural, said CLEANTHES, for men to embrace those principles, by which they
find they can best defend their doctrines; nor need we have any recourse to priestcraft to
account for so reasonable an expedient. And, surely nothing can afford a stronger
presumption, that any set of principles are true, and ought to be embraced, than to
observe that they tend to the confirmation of true religion, and serve to confound the
cavils of Atheists, Libertines, and Freethinkers of all denominations.

PART 2

I must own, CLEANTHES, said DEMEA, that nothing can more surprise me, than the
light in which you have all along put this argument. By the whole tenor of your discourse,
one would imagine that you were maintaining the Being of a God, against the cavils of
Atheists and Infidels; and were necessitated to become a champion for that fundamental
principle of all religion. But this, I hope, is not by any means a question among us. No
man, no man at least of common sense, I am persuaded, ever entertained a serious doubt
with regard to a truth so certain and self-evident. The question is not concerning the being,
but the nature of God. This, I affirm, from the infirmities of human understanding, to be
altogether incomprehensible and unknown to us. The essence of that supreme Mind, his
attributes, the manner of his existence, the very nature of his duration; these, and every
particular which regards so divine a Being, are mysterious to men. Finite, weak, and blind
creatures, we ought to humble ourselves in his august presence; and, conscious of our
frailties, adore in silence his infinite perfections, which eye hath not seen, ear hath not
heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man to conceive. They are covered in a
deep cloud from human curiosity. It is profaneness to attempt penetrating through these
sacred obscurities. And, next to the impiety of denying his existence, is the temerity of
prying into his nature and essence, decrees and attributes.
But lest you should think that my piety has here got the better of my philosophy, I shall
support my opinion, if it needs any support, by a very great authority. I might cite all