Neither is he God, nor can he,
living, become God.
All the more, then, the oak, the lion, the sun, the universe
itself, sections of the absolute, are not God. At the same
stroke the worship of man and the worship of nature are
overthrown.
Now we have to present the counter-proof of this theory.
From the standpoint of social contradictions we have judged of
the morality of man. We are to judge, in its turn and from the
same standpoint, the morality of Providence. In other words, is
God possible, as speculation and faith offer him for the
adoration of mortals?
% 2.--Exposition of the myth of Providence.--Retrogression of
God.
Among the proofs, to the number of three, which theologians and
philosophers are accustomed to bring forward to show the
existence of a God, they give the foremost position to universal
consent.
This argument I considered when, without rejecting or admitting
it, I promptly asked myself: What does universal consent affirm
in affirming a God? And in this connection I should recall the
fact that the difference of religions is not a proof that the
human race has fallen into error in affirming a supreme Me
outside of itself, any more than the diversity of languages is a
proof of the non-reality of reason.
Pages:
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704