A God reason might warrant
Between the dogmatic atheist and the credulous devout, is there an honest place to stand? The young Diderot thinks so: a religion answerable to reason, believing only what the evidence of nature supports.
Written before Diderot became the materialist he later was, these numbered thoughts refuse both extremes. The dogmatic atheist claims to know more than anyone can; the credulous believer swallows terrors and miracles reason should reject. Diderot settles in between, for a God the order of nature might warrant and a faith that answers to evidence rather than authority. He ridicules the fears superstition trades on and borrows Pascal's fragmentary form only to point it the other way, toward doubt rather than submission. It is a deist's book and an opening move, the position of a man not yet thirty whom the state had already decided to watch.
- deism
- theism
- natural theology
- skepticism
- atheism
- religion
- superstition
- epistemology
- miracles
Enter a dialogue
- A person is tired of choosing between smug atheism and unquestioning faith and wants an honest third option. What does your middle path ask of them?
- Isn't a religion answerable to reason an unstable halfway house that a consistent mind must eventually leave for one side or the other?
- How does the God you argue for here differ from the God of the devout you criticize?
- To believe only what the evidence of nature warrants, what consolations of ordinary faith must a person be ready to give up?
- You wrote this before your turn to materialism. Weren't you already reasoning your own way out of the God you defend here?