فقال «كلينثيز» مخاطبا «ديميا»: بغير أن أضيع وقتا في الدوران حول المعنى المقصود، وبغير محاولة الرد على الخطبة الحماسية الورعة التي ألقاها «فيلو» - فإذا لم أكن راغبا في الدوران حول المعنى المقصود، فأنا أقل رغبة في الرد على «فيلو» - سأشرح في إيجاز وجهة نظري إلى هذا الموضوع؛ انظر حول العالم، وتأمل المجموع وكل جزء منه، فلن تجده إلا آلة عظيمة واحدة، تتفرع إلى ما لا نهاية لعدده من آلات أصغر، ثم تعود هذه الأقسام الفرعية فتنقسم فروعا تبلغ حدا يجاوز ما تستطيع الحواس والملكات البشرية أن تتعقبه وتوضحه؛ وكل هذه الآلات المختلفة، بل كل أجزائها البالغة أقصى حد من الصغر، مهيأ بعضها لبعض في دقة تروع بالإعجاب كل من تأملها من بني الإنسان ؛ فهذه المواءمة العجيبة بين الوسائل وغاياتها، في أرجاء الطبيعة كلها، تشبه أتم شبه - ولو أنها تفوق إلى حد كبير - منتجات الصناعة الإنسانية ، تلك المنتجات التي ينتجها الإنسان بتدبيره وفكره وحكمته وذكائه؛ وعلى ذلك فما دامت المسببات يشبه بعضها بعضا، فنحن مضطرون إلى الاستدلال بكل قواعد استدلال المثيل من مثيله، بأن الأسباب كذلك يشبه بعضها بعضا؛ وأن «خالق الطبيعة» شبيه - على نحو ما - بعقل الإنسان ولو أنه ذو ملكات أوسع بكثير لتتناسب مع عظمة العمل الذي أداه؛ بهذه الحجة المستندة إلى الخبرة البشرية، وبهذه الحجة وحدها، نقيم البرهان في آن واحد على وجود إله وعلى شبهه بعقل الإنسان وذكائه. «محاورات في الديانة الطبيعية»

جزء 2 (نشر بروس ميوين) ص26-31

THE BEING AND THE NATURE OF GOD

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 tavils 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 ampeusr aded, 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 the 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 them. They are covered in a deep could from human curiosity: It is profaneness to attempt penetrating through these scared 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 the divines almost, from the foundation of Christianity, who have ever treated of this or any other theological subject: But I shall confine myself, at present, to one equally celebrated for piety and philosophy. It is Father Malebranche, who, I remember, thus expresses himself. 'One ought not so much (says he) to call God a spirit, in order to express positively what he is, as in order to signify that he is not matter. He is a Being infinitely perfect: Of this we cannot doubt ...’

After so great an authority, Demea, replied philo, as that which you have produced, and a thousand more, which you might produce, it would appear ridiculous in me to add my sentiment, or expressmy approbation of your doctrine. But surely, where reasonable men treat these subjects, the question can never be concerning the 'Being’, but only the 'Nature’ of the Deity. The former truth, as you well observe, is unquestionable and self-evident. Nothing exists without a cause; and the original cause of this universe (whatever it be) we call GOD; and piously ascribe to him every species of perfection. Whoever scruples this fundamental truth, deserves every punishment, which can be inflicted among philosophers, to wit, the greatest ridicule, contempt and disapprobation. But as all perfection is entirely relative, we ought never to imagine, that we comprehend the attributes of this divine Being, or to suppose, that his perfections have any analogy or likeness to the perfections of a human creature. Wisdom, Thought, Design, knowledge; these we justly ascribe to him; because these words are honourable among men, and we have no other language or other conceptions, by which we can express our adoration of Him. But let us beware, lest we think, that our ideas any wise correspond to his perfections, or that his attributes have any resemblance to these qualities among men. He is infinitely superior to our limited view and comprehension; and is more the object of worship in the temple, than of disputation in the schools.

In reality, Cleanthes, continued he, there is no need of having recourse to that affected scepticism, so displeasing to you, in order to come at this determination. Our ideas reach no farther than our experience; We have no experience of divine attributes and operations: I need not conclude my syllogism: you can draw the inference yourself. And it is a pleasure to me (and I hope to you too) that just reasoning and sound piety here concur in the same conclusion, and both of them establish the adorably mysterious and incomprehensible nature of the Supreme Being.

Not to lose any time in circumlocution, said Cleanthes, addressing himself to Demea, much less in replying to the pious declamations of philo; I shall briefly explain how I conceive this matter. Look round the world: contemplate the whole and every part of it: you will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit of subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles exactly, though it much exceeds, the productions of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other. we are led to infer. by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resmble; and that the Author of Nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed. By this argument a posteriori and by this argument alone, do we prove at once the existence of a Deity, and his similarity to human mind and intelligence.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion

part II. (ed. Bruce M’Ewen) pp. 26-31

अज्ञात पृष्ठ