An Apology for Atheism | Page 5

deniers of their
Gods every kind of sharp invective and opprobrious epithet, they
cannot assure themselves the 'monsters' did, or do actually exist. With
characteristic humour, David Hume observed 'There are not a greater
number of philosophical reasonings displayed upon any subject than
those which prove the existence of Deity, and refute the fallacies of
Atheists, and yet the most religious philosophers still dispute whether
any man can be so blinded as to be a speculative Atheist;' 'how
(continues he) shall we reconcile these contradictions? The
Knight-errants who wandered about to clear the world of dragons and
of giants, never entertained the least doubt with regard to the existence
of these monsters.' [10:1]
The same Hume who thus pleasantly rebuked 'most religious
philosophers,' was himself a true Atheist. That he lacked faith in the
supernatural must be apparent to every student of his writings, which
abound with reflections far from flattering to the self-love of
religionists, and little calculated to advance their cause. Many Deists
have been called Atheists: among others Robert Owen and Richard
Carlile, both of whom professed belief in something superior to nature,
something acting upon and regulating matter, though not itself material.
[11:1] This something they named power. But Hume has shown we
may search 'in vain for an idea of power or necessary connection in all
the sources from which we would suppose it to be derived. [11:2]

Owen, Carlile, and other Atheists, falsely so called, supposed power the
only entity worthy of deification. They dignified it with such
appellations as 'internal or external cause of all existence,' and ascribed
to it intelligence, with such other honourable attributes as are usually
ascribed to 'deified, error.' But Hume astonished religious philosophers
by declaring that, 'while we argue from the course of nature and infer a
particular intelligent cause, which first bestowed, and still preserves
order in the universe, we embrace a principle which is both uncertain
and useless. It is uncertain, because the subject lies entirely beyond the
reach of human experience. It is useless, because our knowledge of this
cause being derived entirely from the course of nature, we can never,
according to the rules of just reasoning, return back from the cause with
any new inference, or making additions to the common and
experienced course of nature, establish any principles of conduct and
behaviour. [11:3]
Nor did Hume affect to consider Christianity less repugnant to reason
than any other theory or system of supernaturalism. Though
confessedly fast in friendship, generous in disposition, and blameless in
all the relations of life, few sincere Divines can forgive his hostility to
their faith. And without doubt it was hostility eminently calculated to
exhaust their stock of patience, because eminently calculated to damage
their religion, which has nothing to fear from the assaults of ignorant
and immoral opponents; but when assailed by men of unblemished
reputation, who know well how to wield the weapons of wit, sarcasm,
and solid argumentation, its priests are not without reason alarmed lest
their house should be set out of order.
It would be difficult to name a philosopher at once so subtle, so
profound, so bold, and so good as Hume. Notwithstanding his
heterodox reputation, many learned and excellent Christians openly
enjoyed his friendship. A contemporary critic recently presented the
public with 'a curious instance of contrast and of parallel,' between
Robertson and Hume. 'Flourishing (says he) in the same walk of
literature, living in the same society at the same time; similar in their
habits and generous dispositions; equally pure in their morals, and
blameless in all the relations of private life: the one was a devout

believer, the other a most absolute atheist, and both from deep
conviction, founded upon inquiries, carefully and anxiously conducted.
The close and warm friendship which subsisted between these two men,
may, after what we have said, be a matter of surprise to some; but
Robertson's Christianity was enlarged and tolerant, and David Hume's
principles were liberal and philosophical in a remarkable degree.' [12:1]
This testimony needs no comment. It clearly tells its own tale, and
ought to have the effect of throwing discredit upon the vulgar notion
that disgust of all religion is incompatible with talents and virtues of the
highest order; for, in the person of David Hume, the world saw absolute
Atheism co-existent with genius, learning, and moral excellence, rarely,
if ever, surpassed.
The unpopularity of that creed it would be vain to deny. A vast
majority of mankind associate with the idea of disbelief in their Gods
every thing stupid, monstrous, absurd, and atrocious. Absolute Atheism
is thought by them the inseparable ally of most shocking wickedness,
involving as it manifestly does that 'blasphemy against the Holy Ghost'
which we are assured shall not be forgiven unto men 'neither in this
world nor