Showing posts with label Baron D'Holbach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baron D'Holbach. Show all posts

Friday, August 10, 2018

AN IMMATERIAL GOD THAT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF NATURE

Atheism, Philosophical Thought, An Immaterial God That Exists Outside of Nature,Is god in nature?,Is god outside of nature?,Where is the God?, Baron D'Holbach, Samuel Clarke
This is Baron D'Holbach's refutation of Samuel Clarke's assertion in an immaterial God that exists outside of nature. While I don't have the original assertion by Clarke, I think Holdbach's responses can be read without them. Thoughts on these arguments?

Thus, to resume the answers which have been given to Dr. Clarke, we shall say:

1) We can conceive that matter has existed from all eternity, seeing that we cannot conceive it to have been capable of beginning.

2) That matter is independent, seeing there is nothing exterior to itself; that it is immutable, seeing it cannot change its nature, although it is unceasingly changing its form and its combinations.

3) That matter is self-existent, since not being able to conceive it can be annihilated, we cannot possibly conceive it can have commenced existing.

4) That we do not know the essence, or the true nature of matter, although we have a knowledge of some of its properties; of some of its qualities: according to the mode in which they act upon us.

5) That matter not having had a beginning will never have an end, although its numerous combinations, its various forms, have necessarily a commencement and a period.

6) That is all that exists, or everything our mind can conceive is matter, this matter is infinite; that is to say, cannot be limited by anything; that it is omnipresent, seeing there is no place exterior to itself; indeed, if there was a place exterior to it, that would be a vacuum.

7) That nature is unique, although its elements or its parts may be varied to infinity, induced with properties extremely opposite; with qualities essentially different.

8) That matter, arranged, modified, and combined in a certain mode, produces in some beings what we call intelligence, which is one of its modes of being, not one of its essential properties.

9) That matter is not a free agent, since it cannot act otherwise than it does, in virtue of 'the laws of its nature, or of its existence ; that consequently, heavy bodies must necessarily fall; light bodies by the same necessity rise; fire must burn; man must experience good and evil, according to the quality of the beings whose action he experiences.

10) That the power or the energy of matter has no other bounds than those which are prescribed by its own existence.

11) That wisdom, justice, goodness, etc. are qualities peculiar to matter combined and modified, as it is found in some beings of the human species; that the idea of perfection is an abstract, negative, metaphysical idea, or mode of considering objects, which supposes nothing real to be exterior to itself.

12) That matter is the principle of motion, which it contains within itself: since matter alone is capable of either giving or receiving motion:

This is what cannot be conceived of immateriality or simple beings destitute of parts, devoid of extent, without mass, having no ponderosity, which consequently cannot either move itself or other.

Author: Mike Barnhouse
Read More

CLOSER TO DEISM THAN ATHEISM

While Baron D'Holbach is normally considered a staunch advocate of atheism, I've found a few passages in The System of Nature which suggest he might have had a belief closer to Deism than atheism. The following passage certainly caught my eye:

"Of whatever nature this great Cause of causes may be, it is evident to the slightest reflection that he has been sedulous to conceal himself from our view; that he has rendered it impossible for us to have the least- acquaintance with him, except through the medium of nature, which he has unquestionably rendered competent to everything. This is the rich banquet spread before man; he is invited to partake, with a welcome he has no right to dispute; to enjoy that which must make him most acceptable; to be happy himself is to make others happy; to make others happy is to be virtuous, to be virtuous he must revere truth. To know what truth is, he must examine with caution, scrutinize with severity, every opinion he adopts.
This granted, is it at all consistent with the majesty of the Divinity, is it not insulting to such a being to clothe him with our wayward passions, to ascribe to him designs similar to our narrow view of things; to give him our filthy desires; to suppose' he can be guided by our finite conceptions: to bring him on a level with frail humanity, by investing him with our qualities, however much we may exaggerate them; to indulge an opinion that he can either act or think as we do; to imagine he can in any manner resemble such a feeble play-thing, as is the greatest, the most distinguished man? No! it is to degrade him in the eye of reason; to violate every regard for truth, to set moral decency at defiance; to fall back into the depth of Cimmerian darkness. Let man, therefore, sit down cheerfully, to the feast; let him contentedly partake of what he finds; but let him not worry the Divinity with his useless prayers, with his shallow-sighted requests, to solicit at his hands that which, if granted, would in all probability be the most injurious for himself: these supplications are, in fact, at once to say, that with our limited experience, with our slender knowledge, we better understand what is suitable to our condition, what is convenient to our welfare, than the mighty Cause of all causes who has left us in the hands of nature: it is to be presumptuous in the highest degree of presumption; it is impiously to endeavour to lift up a veil which it is evidently forbidden man to touch; that even his most strenuous efforts attempt in vain."
That, to me, sounds like a man that believes in a Deistic God that he knows he could never have any true "knowledge" of, and accepts his limitations.
Read More