Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy: Volume 3 (of 3)Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
PhilosophyPhilosophy
Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy: Volume 3 (of 3)
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Philosophy -- History
Vanini certainly made one of the speakers in the Dialogues prove (_De
naturæ arcanis_, p. 420) even “out of the text of the Bible, that the
devil is mightier than God,” and that therefore God does not rule the
world. Among his arguments are the following: It was against the will
of God that Adam and Eve sinned, and thus brought the whole human race
to ruin (_ad interitum_): Christ also was crucified by the powers of
darkness. Moreover it is the will of God that all men should be saved.
But of Catholics there are very few in comparison with the rest of the
world, and the Jews often fell away from their faith; the Catholic
religion extends only over Spain, France, Italy, Poland and a part of
Germany. If there were to be deducted also the atheists, blasphemers,
heretics, whoremongers, adulterers, and so on, there would be still fewer
left. Consequently the devil is mightier than God. These are arguments
of reason; they are not to be refuted; but he submitted himself to the
faith. It is remarkable that no one believed this of him; the reason
thereof being that it was impossible for him to be in earnest with the
refutation of what he asserted to be rational. That the refutation was
but weak and subjective does not justify anyone in doubting Vanini’s
sincerity; for poor reasons may be convincing for the subject, just as
the subject holds to his own rights in respect of objective matters. What
lies at the bottom of the proceedings against Vanini is this, that when a
man by means of his reason has come to perceive something which seems to
him incontrovertible, he cannot but adhere to these definite perceptions,
he cannot believe what is opposed to them. It is impossible to believe
that faith is stronger in him than this power of perception.
The Church in this way fell into the strange contradiction of condemning
Vanini, because he did not find her doctrines in accordance with reason,
and yet submitted himself to them; she thus appeared to demand—a demand
which she emphasized with the burning pile—not that her doctrines should
be considered above reason, but in accordance with it, and that reason
should have merely the formal function of explaining the content of
theology, without adding anything of her own. This susceptibility of the
Church is inconsistent, and entangled her in contradictions. For in
earlier times she certainly admitted that reason could not grasp what
was revealed, and that it was consequently a matter of little importance
to refute and solve by reason the objections which reason itself brought
forward. But as she now would not permit the contradiction of faith
and reason to be taken seriously, but burned Vanini at the stake as an
atheist for professing so to do, it was implied that the doctrine of the
Church cannot contradict reason, while man has yet to submit reason to
the Church.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account