Section1. APOLOGUE2, 3. What is Theology?4. Man is not born with any ideas of Religion5. It is not necessary to believe in a God6. Religion is founded on credulity7. All religion is an absurdity8. The idea of God is impossible9. On the Origin of Superstition10. On the Origin of all Religion11. Religious fears expose men to become a prey to imposters12, 13. Religion seduces ignorance by the aid of the marvellous14. There would never have been any Religion, if there had not beenages of Stupidity and Barbarism15. All Religion was produced by the desire of domination16. What serves as a basis to Religion is most uncertain17, 18. It is impossible to be convinced of the existence of a God19. The existence of God is not proved20. It explains nothing to say, that God is a spirit21. Spirituality is an absurdity22. Whatever exists is derived from Matter23. What is the metaphysical God of modern Theology?24. It would be less unreasonable to adore the Sun, than to adorea spiritual Deity25. A spiritual Deity is incapable of volition and action26. What is God?27. Some remarkable Contradictions in Theology28. To adore God, is to adore a fiction29. Atheism is authorised by the infinity of God, and the impossibilityof knowing the Divine essence30. Believing in God is neither safer nor less criminal than notbelieving in him31. Belief in God is a habit acquired in infancy32. Belief in God is a prejudice established by successive generations33. On the Origin of Prejudices34. On the effects of Prejudices35. The Religious principles of modern Theology could not be believedif they were not instilled into the mind before the age of reason36. The wonders of nature do not prove the existence of God37, 38. Nature may be explained by natural causes39, 40. The world has never been created: Matter moves of itself41. Additional proofs that motion is essential to Matter, and thatconsequently it is unnecessary to imagine a Spiritual Mover42. The existence of Man does not prove the existence of God43. Nevertheless, neither Man nor the Universe are the effects of chance44, 45. The order of the Universe does not prove the existence of a God46. A Spirit cannot be intelligent it is absurd to adore a divineintelligence47, 48. All the qualities, which Theology gives to its God are contraryto the Essence which is attributed to him49. It is absurd to say that the human race is the object and endof the formation of the Universe50. God is not made for Man, nor Man for God51. It is not true that the object of the formation of the Universewas to render Man happy52. What is called Providence is a word without meaning53. This pretended Providence is the enemy of Man54. The world is not governed by an intelligent being55. God cannot be considered immutable56. Good and evil are the necessary effects of natural causes.What is a God that cannot change any thing?57. The consolations of Theology and the hope of paradise and ofa future life, are imaginary58. Another romantic reverie59. It is in vain that Theology attempts to clear its God from humandefects: either this God is not free, or else he is more wickedthan good60, 61. It is impossible to believe that there exists a God ofinfinite goodness and power62. Theology makes its God a monster of absurdity, injustice,malice, and atrocity63. All Religion inspires contemptible fears64. There is no difference between Religion, and the most somberand servile Superstition65. To judge from the ideas which Theology gives of the Deity, thelove of God is impossible66. An eternally tormenting God is a most detestable being67. Theology is a tissue of palpable contradictions68. The pretended works of God do not prove Divine Perfections69. The perfection of God is not rendered more evident by thepretended creation of angels70. Theology preaches the Omnipotence of its God, yet constantlymakes him appear impotent71. According to all religious systems, God would be the mostcapricious and most foolish of beings72. It is absurd to say that Evil does not proceed from God73. The foreknowledge attributed to God would give men a rightto complain of his cruelty74. Absurdity of the theological stories concerning Original Sin,and concerning Satan75. The Devil, like Religion, was invented to enrich the priests76. If God has been unable to render human nature incapable of sin,he has no right to punish man77. It is absurd to say, that the conduct of God ought to be a mysteryfor man78. Ought the unfortunate look for consolation, to the sole authorof their misery79. A God, who punishes the faults which he might have prevented,is a mad tyrant, who joins injustice to folly80. What is called Free Will is an absurdity81. But we must not conclude that Society has no right to punish82, 83. Refutation of the arguments in favour of Free Will84. God himself, if there were a God, would not be free: hence theinutility of all Religion85. According to the principles of Theology, man is not free asingle instant86. There is no evil, no disorder, and no sin, but must be attributedto God: consequently God has no right either to punish or recompence87. The prayers offered to God sufficiently prove dissatisfaction ofthe divine will88. It is the height of absurdity to imagine, that the injuries andmisfortunes, endured in this world, will be repaired in another world89. Theology justifies the evil and the wickedness, permitted by its God,only by attributing to him the principle, that "Might makes Right,"which is the violation of all Right90. The absurd doctrine of Redemption, and the frequent exterminationsattributed to Jehovah, impress one with the idea of an unjust andbarbarous God91. Can a being, who has called us into existence merely to make usmiserable, be a generous, equitable, and tender father?92. Man's life, and all that occurs, deposes against the liberty of Man,and against the justice and goodness of a pretended God93. It is not true, that we owe any gratitude to what is calledProvidence94. It is folly to suppose that Man is the king of nature, the favouriteof God, and unique object of his labours95. A comparison between Man and brutes96. There are no animals so detestable as Tyrants97. A refutation of the excellence of Man98. An oriental Tale99. It is madness to see nothing but the goodness of God, or to thinkthat this universe is only made for Man100. What is the Soul?101. The existence of aSoulis an absurd supposition; and the existenceof animmortalSoul still more absurd102. It is evident that Man diesin toto103. Incontestible arguments against the Spirituality of the Soul104. On the absurdity of the supernatural causes, to which Theologiansare constantly having recourse105, 106. It is false that Materialism degrades107. The idea of a future life is only useful to those, who trade onpublic credulity108. It is false that the idea of a future life is consoling109. All religious principles are derived from the imagination.God is a chimera; and the qualities, attributed to him,reciprocally destroy one another110. Religion is but a system imagined in order to reconcilecontradictions by the aid of mysteries111, 112, 113. Absurdity and inutility of all Mysteries, which were onlyinvented for the interests of Priests114. An universal God ought to have revealed an universal Religion115. What proves, that Religion is unnecessary, is, that it isunintelligible116. All Religions are rendered ridiculous by the multitude of creeds,all opposite to one another, and all equally foolish117. Opinion of a famous Theologian118. The God of the Deists is not less contradictory, nor less chimericalthan the God of the Christians119. It by no means proves the existence of God to say, that, in everyage, all nations have acknowledged some Deity or other120. All Gods are of a savage origin: all Religions are monuments ofthe ignorance, superstition, and ferocity of former times: modernReligions are but ancient follies, re-edited with additions andcorrections121. All religious usages bear marks of stupidity and barbarism122. The more a religious opinion is ancient and general, the more itought to be suspected123. Mere scepticism in religious matters, can only be the effect ofa very superficial examination124. Revelations examined125. Where is the proof that God ever shewed himself to Men, or everspoke to them?126. There is nothing that proves miracles to have been ever performed127. If God has spoken, is it not strange that he should have spokenso differently to the different religious sects?128. Obscurity and suspicious origin of oracles129. Absurdity of all miracles130. Refutation of the reasoning of Pascal concerning the manner in whichwe must judge of miracles131. Every new revelation is necessarily false132. The blood of martyrs testifiesagainstthe truth of miracles, andagainstthe divine origin attributed to Christianity133. The fanaticism of martyrs, and the interested zeal of missionaries,by no means prove the truth of Religion134. Theology makes its God an enemy to Reason and Common Sense135. Faith is irreconcilable with Reason; and Reason is preferableto Faith136. To what absurd and ridiculous sophisms every one is reduced, whowould substitute Faith for Reason!137. Ought a man to believe, on the assurance of another man, what isof the greatest importance to himself138. Faith can take root only in feeble, ignorant, or slothful minds139. To teach, that any one Religion has greater pretensions to truththan another, is an absurdity, and cause of tumult140. Religion is unnecessary to Morality141. Religion is the weakest barrier that can be opposed to the passions142. Honour is a more salutary and powerful bond than Religion143. Religion does not restrain the passions of kings144. Origin of "the divine right of kings," the most absurd, ridiculous,and odious, of usurpations145. Religion is fatal to political ameliorations: it makes despotslicentious and wicked, and their subjects abject and miserable146. Christianity has propagated itself by preaching implicit obedienceto despotism147. One object of religious principles is to eternize the tyrannyof kings148. How fatal it is to persuade kings that they are responsible fortheir actions to God alone149. A devout king is the scourge of his kingdom150. Tyranny sometimes finds the aegis of Religion a weak obstacleto the despair of the people151. Religion favours the wickedness of princes by delivering themfrom fear and remorse152. What is an enlightened Sovereign?153. Of the prevailing passions and crimes of the priesthood154. The quackery of priests155. Religion has corrupted Morality, and produced innumerable evils156. Every Religion is intolerant157. The evils of a state Religion158. Religion legitimates and authorizes crime159. Refutation of the argument, that the evils attributed to Religionare but the bad effects of human passions160. Religion is incompatible with Morality161. The Morality of the Gospel is impracticable162. A society of Saints would be impossible163. Human nature is not depraved164. Concerning the effects of Jesus Christ's mission165. The dogma of the remission of sins was invented for the interestof priests166. Who fear God?167. Hell is an absurd invention168. The bad foundation of religious morals169. Christian Charity, as preached and practised by Theologians!!!170. Confession, priestcraft's gold mine, and the destruction of thetrue principles of Morality171. The supposition of the existence of a God is by no means necessaryto Morality172. Religion and its supernatural Morality are fatal to thepublic welfare173. The union of Church and State is a calamity174. National Religions are ruinous175. Religion paralyses Morality176. Fatal consequences of Devotion177. The idea of a future life is not consoling to man178. An Atheist is fully as conscientious as a religious man, and hasbetter motives for doing good179. An Atheistical king would be far preferable to a religious king180. Philosophy produces Morality181. Religious opinions have little influence upon conduct182. Reason leads man to Atheism183. Fear alone makes Theists184. Can we, and ought we, to love God?185. God and Religion are proved to be absurdities by the differentideas formed of them186. The existence of God, which is the basis of Religion, has not yetbeen demonstrated187. Priests are more actuated by self-interest, than unbelievers188. Pride, presumption, and badness, are more often found in priests,than in Atheists189. Prejudices last but for a time: no power is durable which is notfounded upon truth190. What an honourable power ministers of the Gods would obtain,if they became the apostles of reason and the defenders of liberty!191. What a glorious and happy revolution it would be for the world,if Philosophy were substituted for Religion!192. The recantation of an unbeliever at the point of death provesnothing against the reasonableness of unbelief193. It is not true that Atheism breaks the bonds of society194. Refutation of the often repeated opinion, that Religion is necessaryfor the vulgar195. Logical and argumentative systems are not adapted to the capacityof the vulgar196. On the futility and danger of Theology197, 198. On the evils produced by implicit faith199. History teaches us, that all Religions were established byimpostors, in days of ignorance200. All Religions, ancient or modern, have borrowed from oneanother ridiculous ceremonies201. Theology has always diverted philosophy from its right path202. Theology explains nothing203, 204. Theology has always fettered Morality, and retarded progress205. It cannot be too often repeated and proved, that Religion is anextravagance and a calamity206. Religion prevents us from seeing the true causes of misfortunes
There is a vast empire, governed by a monarch, whose strange conduct is to confound the minds of his subjects. He wishes to be known, loved, respected, obeyed; but never shows himself to his subjects, and everything conspires to render uncertain the ideas formed of his character.
The people, subjected to his power, have, of the character and laws of their invisible sovereign, such ideas only, as his ministers give them. They, however, confess, that they have no idea of their master; that his ways are impenetrable; his views and nature totally incomprehensible. These ministers, likewise, disagree upon the commands which they pretend have been issued by the sovereign, whose servants they call themselves. They defame one another, and mutually treat each other as impostors and false teachers. The decrees and ordinances, they take upon themselves to promulgate, are obscure; they are enigmas, little calculated to be understood, or even divined, by the subjects, for whose instruction they were intended. The laws of the concealed monarch require interpreters; but the interpreters are always disputing upon the true manner of understanding them. Besides, they are not consistent with themselves; all they relate of their concealed prince is only a string of contradictions. They utter concerning him not a single word that does not immediately confute itself. They call him supremely good; yet many complain of his decrees. They suppose him infinitely wise; and under his administration everything appears to contradict reason. They extol his justice; and the best of his subjects are generally the least favoured. They assert, he sees everything; yet his presence avails nothing. He is, say they, the friend of order; yet throughout his dominions, all is in confusion and disorder. He makes all for himself; and the events seldom answer his designs. He foresees everything; but cannot prevent anything. He impatiently suffers offence, yet gives everyone the power of offending him. Men admire the wisdom and perfection of his works; yet his works, full of imperfection, are of short duration. He is continually doing and undoing; repairing what he has made; but is never pleased with his work. In all his undertakings, he proposes only his own glory; yet is never glorified. His only end is the happiness of his subjects; and his subjects, for the most part want necessaries. Those, whom he seems to favour are generally least satisfied with their fate; almost all appear in perpetual revolt against a master, whose greatness they never cease to admire, whose wisdom to extol, whose goodness to adore, whose justice to fear, and whose laws to reverence, though never obeyed!
This EMPIRE is the WORLD; this MONARCH GOD; his MINISTERS are the PRIESTS; his SUBJECTS MANKIND.
There is a science that has for its object only things incomprehensible. Contrary to all other sciences, it treats only of what cannot fall under our senses. Hobbes calls it thekingdom of darkness. It is a country, where every thing is governed by laws, contrary to those which mankind are permitted to know in the world they inhabit. In this marvellous region, light is only darkness; evidence is doubtful or false; impossibilities are credible: reason is a deceitful guide; and good sense becomes madness. Thisscienceis calledtheology, and this theology is a continual insult to the reason of man.
By the magical power of "ifs," "buts," "perhaps's," "what do we know," etc., heaped together, a shapeless and unconnected system is formed, perplexing mankind, by obliterating from their minds, the most clear ideas and rendering uncertain truths most evident. By reason of this systematic confusion, nature is an enigma; the visible world has disappeared, to give place to regions invisible; reason is compelled to yield to imagination, who leads to the country of her self-invented chimeras.
The principles of every religion are founded upon the idea of a GOD. Now, it is impossible to have true ideas of a being, who acts upon none of our senses. All our ideas are representations of sensible objects. What then can represent to us the idea of God, which is evidently an idea without an object? Is not such an idea as impossible, as an effect without a cause? Can an idea without an archetype be anything, but a chimera? There are, however, divines, who assure us that the idea of God is innate; or that we have this idea in our mother's womb. Every principle is the result of reason; all reason is the effect of experience; experience is acquired only by the exercise of our senses: therefore, religious principles are not founded upon reason, and are not innate.
Every system of religion can be founded only upon the nature of God and man; and upon the relations, which subsist between them. But to judge of the reality of those relations, we must have some idea of the divine nature. Now, the world exclaims, the divine nature is incomprehensible to man; yet ceases not to assign attributes to this incomprehensible God, and to assure us, that it is our indispensable duty to find out that God, whom it is impossible to comprehend.
The most important concern of man is what he can least comprehend. If God is incomprehensible to man, it would seem reasonable never to think of him; but religion maintains, man cannot with impunity cease a moment to think (or rather dream) of his God.
We are told, that divine qualities are not of a nature to be comprehended by finite minds. The natural consequence must be, that divine qualities are not made to occupy finite minds. But religion tells us, that the poor finite mind of man ought never to lose sight of an inconceivable being, whose qualities he can never comprehend. Thus, we see, religion is the art of turning the attention of mankind upon subjects they can never comprehend.
Religion unites man with God, or forms a communication between them; yet do they not say, God is infinite? If God be infinite, no finite being can have communication or relation with him. Where there is no relation, there can be no union, communication, or duties. If there be no duties between man and his God, there is no religion for man. Thus, in saying God is infinite, you annihilate religion for man, who is a finite being. The idea of infinity is to us an idea without model, without archetype, without object.
If God be an infinite being, there cannot be, either in the present or future world, any relative proportion between man and his God. Thus, the idea of God can never enter the human mind. In supposition of a life, in which man would be much more enlightened, than in this, the idea of the infinity of God would ever remain the same distance from his finite mind. Thus the idea of God will be no more clear in the future, than in the present life. Thus, intelligences, superior to man, can have no more complete ideas of God, than man, who has not the least conception of him in his present life.
How has it been possible to persuade reasonable beings, that the thing, most impossible to comprehend, was most essential to them? It is because they have been greatly terrified; because, when they fear, they cease to reason; because, they have been taught to mistrust their own understanding; because, when the brain is troubled, they believe every thing, and examine nothing.
Ignorance and fear are the two hinges of all religion. The uncertainty in which man finds himself in relation to his God, is precisely the motive that attaches him to his religion. Man is fearful in the dark—in moral, as well as physical darkness. His fear becomes habitual, and habit makes it natural; he would think that he wanted something, if he had nothing to fear.
He, who from infancy has habituated himself to tremble when he hears pronounced certain words, requires those words and needs to tremble. He is therefore more disposed to listen to one, who entertains him in his fears, than to one, who dissuades him from them. The superstitious man wishes to fear; his imagination demands it; one might say, that he fears nothing so much, as to have nothing to fear.
Men are imaginary invalids, whose weakness empirics are interested to encourage, in order to have sale for their drugs. They listen rather to the physician, who prescribes a variety of remedies, than to him, who recommends good regimen, and leaves nature to herself.
If religion were more clear, it would have less charms for the ignorant, who are pleased only with obscurity, terrors, fables, prodigies, and things incredible. Romances, silly stories, and the tales of ghosts and wizards, are more pleasing to vulgar minds than true histories.
In point of religion, men are only great children. The more a religion is absurd and filled with wonders, the greater ascendancy it acquires over them. The devout man thinks himself obliged to place no bounds to his credulity; the more things are inconceivable, they appear to him divine; the more they are incredible, the greater merit, he imagines, there is in believing them.
The origin of religious opinions is generally dated from the time, when savage nations were yet in infancy. It was to gross, ignorant, and stupid people, that the founders of religion have in all ages addressed themselves, when they wished to give them their Gods, their mode of worship, their mythology, their marvellous and frightful fables. These chimeras, adopted without examination by parents, are transmitted, with more or less alteration, to their children, who seldom reason any more than their parents.
The object of the first legislators was to govern the people; and the easiest method to effect it was to terrify their minds, and to prevent the exercise of reason. They led them through winding bye-paths, lest they might perceive the designs of their guides; they forced them to fix their eyes in the air, for fear they should look at their feet; they amused them on the way with idle stories; in a word, they treated them as nurses do children, who sing lullabies, to put them to sleep, and scold, to make them quiet.
The existence of a God is the basis of all religion. Few appear to doubt his existence; yet this fundamental article utterly embarrasses every mind that reasons. The first question of every catechism has been, and ever will be, the most difficult to resolve. (In the year 1701, the holy fathers of the oratory of Vendome maintained in a thesis, this proposition—that, according to St. Thomas, the existence of God is not, and cannot be, a subject of faith.)
Can we imagine ourselves sincerely convinced of the existence of a being, whose nature we know not; who is inaccessible to all our senses; whose attributes, we are assured, are incomprehensible to us? To persuade me that a being exists or can exist, I must be first told what that being is. To induce me to believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, it is necessary to tell me things concerning him that are not contradictory, and do not destroy one another. In short, to fully convince me of the existence of that being, it is necessary to tell me things that I can understand.
A thing is impossible, when it includes two ideas that mutually destroy one another, and which can neither be conceived nor united in thought. Conviction can be founded only upon the constant testimony of our senses, which alone give birth to our ideas, and enable us to judge of their agreement or disagreement. That, which exists necessarily, is that, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. These principles, universally acknowledged, become erroneous, when applied to the existence of a God. Whatever has been hitherto said upon the subject, is either unintelligible, or perfect contradiction, and must therefore appear absurd to every rational man.
All human knowledge is more or less clear. By what strange fatality have we never been able to elucidate the science of God? The most civilized nations, and among them the most profound thinkers, are in this respect no more enlightened than the most savage tribes and ignorant peasants; and, examining the subject closely, we shall find, that, by the speculations and subtle refinements of men, the divine science has been only more and more obscured. Every religion has hitherto been founded only upon what is called, in logic,begging the question; it takes things for granted, and then proves, by suppositions, instead of principles.
Metaphysics teach us, that God is apure spirit. But, is modern theology superior to that of the savages? The savages acknowledge agreat spirit, for the master of the world. The savages, like all ignorant people, attribute tospiritsall the effects, of which their experience cannot discover the true causes. Ask a savage, what works your watch? He will answer,it is a spirit. Ask the divines, what moves the universe? They answer,it is a spirit.
The savage, when he speaks of a spirit, affixes, at least, some idea to the word; he means thereby an agent, like the air, the breeze, the breath, that invisibly produces discernible effects. By subtilizing every thing, the modern theologian becomes as unintelligible to himself as to others. Ask him, what he understands by a spirit? He will answer you, that it is an unknown substance, perfectly simple, that has no extension, that has nothing common with matter. Indeed, is there any one, who can form the least idea of such a substance? What then is a spirit, to speak in the language of modern theology, but the absence of an idea? The idea ofspiritualityis an idea without model.
Is it not more natural and intelligible to draw universal existence from the matter, whose existence is demonstrated by all the senses, and whose effects we experience, which we see act, move, communicate motion, and incessantly generate, than to attribute the formation of things to an unknown power, to a spiritual being, who cannot derive from his nature what he has not himself, and who, by his spiritual essence, can create neither matter nor motion? Nothing is more evident, than that the idea they endeavour to give us, of the action of mind upon matter, represents no object. It is an idea without model.
The materialJupiterof the ancients could move, compose, destroy, and create beings, similar to himself; but the God of modern theology is sterile. He can neither occupy any place in space, nor move matter, nor form a visible world, nor create men or gods. The metaphysical God is fit only to produce confusion, reveries, follies, and disputes.
Since a God was indispensably requisite to men, why did they not worship the Sun, that visible God, adored by so many nations? What being had greater claim to the homage of men, than the day-star, who enlightens, warms, and vivifies all beings; whose presence enlivens and regenerates nature, whose absence seems to cast her into gloom and languor? If any being announced to mankind, power, activity, beneficence, and duration, it was certainly the Sun, whom they ought to have regarded as the parent of nature, as the divinity. At least, they could not, without folly, dispute his existence, or refuse to acknowledge his influence.
The theologian exclaims to us, that God wants neither hands nor arms to act; thathe acts by his will. But pray, who or what is that God, who has a will, and what can be the subject of his divine will?
Are the stories of witches, ghosts, wizards, hobgoblins, etc., more absurd and difficult to believe than the magical or impossible action of mind upon matter? When we admit such a God, fables and reveries may claim belief. Theologians treat men as children, whose simplicity makes them believe all the stories they hear.
To shake the existence of God, we need only to ask a theologian to speak of him. As soon as he has said a word upon the subject, the least reflection will convince us, that his observations are totally incompatible with the essence he ascribes to his God. What then is God? It is an abstract word, denoting the hidden power of nature; or it is a mathematical point, that has neither length, breadth, nor thickness. David Hume, speaking of theologians, has ingeniously observed,that they have discovered the solution of the famous problem of Archimedes—a point in the heavens, whence they move the world.
Religion prostrates men before a being, who, without extension, is infinite, and fills all with his immensity; a being, all-powerful, who never executes his will; a being, sovereignly good, who creates only disquietudes; a being, the friend of order, and in whose government all is in confusion and disorder. What then, can we imagine, can be the God of theology?
To avoid all embarrassment, we are told, "that it is not necessary to know what God is; that we must adore him; that we are not permitted to extend our views to his attributes." But, before we know that we must adore a God, must we not know certainly, that he exists? But, how can we assure ourselves, that he exists, if we never examine whether the various qualities, attributed to him, do really exist and agree in him? Indeed, to adore God, is to adore only the fictions of one's own imagination, or rather, it is to adore nothing.
In view of confounding things the more, theologians have not declared what their God is; they tell us only what he is not. By means of negations and abstractions, they think they have composed a real and perfect being. Mind is that, which isnotbody. An infinite being is a being, who isnotfinite. A perfect being is a being, who isnotimperfect. Indeed, is there any one, who can form real ideas of such a mass of absence of ideas? That, which excludes all idea, can it be any thing but nothing?
To pretend, that the divine attributes are beyond the reach of human conception, is to grant, that God is not made for man. To assure us, that, in God, all is infinite, is to own that there can be nothing common to him and his creatures. If there be nothing common to God and his creatures, God is annihilated for man, or, at least, rendered useless to him. "God," they say, "has made man intelligent, but he has not made him omniscient;" hence it is inferred, that he has not been able to give him faculties sufficiently enlarged to know his divine essence. In this case, it is evident, that God has not been able nor willing to be known by his creatures. By what right then would God be angry with beings, who were naturally incapable of knowing the divine essence? God would be evidently the most unjust and capricious of tyrants, if he should punish an Atheist for not having known, what, by his nature, it was impossible he should know.
To the generality of men, nothing renders an argument more convincing than fear. It is therefore, that theologians assure us,we must take the safest part; that nothing is so criminal as incredulity; that God will punish without pity every one who has the temerity to doubt his existence; that his severity is just, since madness or perversity only can make us deny the existence of an enraged monarch, who without mercy avenges himself on Atheists. If we coolly examine these threatenings, we shall find, they always suppose the thing in question. They must first prove the existence of a God, before they assure us, it is safest to believe, and horrible to doubt or deny his existence. They must then prove, that it is possible and consistent, that a just God cruelly punishes men for having been in a state of madness, that prevented their believing the existence of a being, whom their perverted reason could not conceive. In a word, they must prove, that an infinitely just God can infinitely punish the invincible and natural ignorance of man with respect to the divine nature. Do not theologians reason very strangely? They invent phantoms, they compose them of contradictions; they then assure us, it is safest not to doubt the existence of these phantoms they themselves have invented. According to this mode of reasoning, there is no absurdity, which it would not be more safe to believe, than not to believe.
All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God. Are they then criminal on account of their ignorance? At what age must they begin to believe in God? It is, you say, at the age of reason. But at what time should this age commence? Besides, if the profoundest theologians lose themselves in the divine nature, which they do not presume to comprehend, what ideas must man have of him?