OF THE COMPARISON SO OFTEN MADE BETWEEN ATHEISM AND IDOLATRY
It seems to me that in the "Encyclopedic Dictionary" the opinion of the Jesuit Richeome, on atheists and idolaters, has not been refuted as strongly as it might have been; opinion held formerly by St.Thomas, St.
Gregory of Nazianze, St.Cyprian and Tertullian, opinion that Arnobius set forth with much force when he said to the pagans: "Do you not blush to reproach us with despising your gods, and is it not much more proper to believe in no God at all, than to impute to them infamous actions?"opinion established long before by Plutarch, who says "that he much prefers people to say there is no Plutarch, than to say-'There is an inconstant, choleric, vindictive Plutarch'"; opinion strengthened finally by all the effort of Bayle's dialectic.
Here is the ground of dispute, brought to fairly dazzling light by the Jesuit Richeome, and rendered still more plausible by the way Bayle has turned it to account."There are two porters at the door of a house; they are asked: 'Can one speak to your master?' 'He is not there,' answers one.'He is there,'
answers the other, 'but he is busy making counterfeit money, forged contracts, daggers and poisons, to undo those who have but accomplished his purposes.'
The atheist resembles the first of these porters, the pagan the other.
It is clear, therefore, that the pagan offends the Deity more gravely than does the atheist."With Father Richeome's and even Bayle's permission, that is not at all the position of the matter.For the first porter to resemble the atheists, he must not say-"My master is not here": he should say-"I have no master;him whom you claim to be my master does not exist; my comrade is a fool to tell you that he is busy compounding poisons and sharpening daggers to assassinate those who have executed his caprices.No such being exists in the world."Richeome has reasoned, therefore, very badly.And Bayle, in his somewhat diffuse discourses, has forgotten himself so far as to do Richeome the honour of annotating him very malapropos.
Plutarch seems to express himself much better in preferring people who affirm there is no Plutarch, to those who claim Plutarch to be an unsociable man.In truth, what does it matter to him that people say he is not in the world? But it matters much to him that his reputation be not tarnished.
It is not thus with the Supreme Being.
Plutarch even does not broach the real object under discussion.It is not a question of knowing who offends more the Supreme Being, whether it be he who denies Him, or he who distorts Him.It is impossible to know otherwise than by revelation, if God is offended by the empty things men say of Him.
Without a thought, philosophers fall almost always into the ideas of the common herd, in supposing God to be jealous of His glory, to be choleric, to love vengeance, and in taking rhetorical figures for real ideas.The interesting subject for the whole universe, is to know if it be not better, for the good of all mankind, to admit a rewarding and revengeful God, who recompenses good actions hidden, and who punishes secret crimes, than to admit none at all.
Bayle exhausts himself in recounting all the infamies imputed by fable to the gods of antiquity.His adversaries answer him with commonplaces that signify nothing.The partisans of Bayle and his enemies have almost always fought without making contact.They all agree that Jupiter was an adulterer, Venus a wanton, Mercury a rogue.But, as I see it, that is not what needs consideration.One must distinguish between Ovid's Metamorphoses and the religion of the ancient Romans.It is quite certain that never among the Romans or even among the Greeks, was there a temple dedicated to Mercury the rogue, Venus the wanton, Jupiter the adulterer.
The god whom the Romans called Deus optimus , very good, very great, was not reputed to encourage Clodius to sleep with Caesar's wife, or Caesar to be King Nicomedes' Sodomite.
Cicero does not say that Mercury incited Verres to steal Sicily, although Mercury, in the fable, had stolen Apollo's cows.The real religion of the ancients was that Jupiter, very good and very just , and the secondary gods, punished the perjurer in the infernal regions.Likewise the Romans were long the most religious observers of oaths.Religion was very useful, therefore, to the Romans.There was no command to believe in Leda's two eggs, in the changing of Inachus' daughter into a cow, in the love of Apollo for Hyacinthus.
One must not say therefore that the religion of Numa dishonoured the Deity.For a long time, therefore, people have been disputing over a chimera;which happens only too often.
The question is then asked whether a nation of atheists can exist; it seems to me that one must distinguish between the nation properly so called, and a society of philosophers above the nation.It is very true that in every country the populace has need of the greatest curb, and that if Bayle had had only five or six hundred peasants to govern, he would not have failed to announce to them the existence of a God, rewarder and revenger.
But Bayle would not have spoken of Him to the Epicureans who were rich people, fond of rest, cultivating all the social virtues, and above all friendship, fleeing the embarrassment and danger of public affairs, in fine leading a comfortable and innocent life.It seems to me that in this way the dispute is finished as regards society and politics.
For entirely savage races, it has been said already that one cannot count them among either the atheists or the theists.Asking them their belief would be like asking them if they are for Aristotle or D mocritus:
they know nothing; they are not atheists any more than they are Peripatetics.
