the existence of the gods. The supporters of atheism dispute the value
of this argument. They say: "General opinion proves nothing. How many
fabulous legends have been set up by the common belief into historic
verities! All mankind believed for a long time that the sun revolved
about the earth. Truth makes way in the world only by contradicting
opinions generally received. The faith of the greater number is rather a
mark of error than a sign of truth." This objection rests upon a
confusion of ideas. Humanity has no testimony to render upon scientific
questions, the solution of which is reserved for patient study; but
humanity bears witness to its own nature. The universality of religion
proves that the search after the divine is, as said the Roman orator, a
law of nature. When therefore we rise from matter to man, and from man
to God, we are not going in an arbitrary road, but are advancing
according to the law of nature ascertained by the testimony of humanity.
It needs a mind at once very daring and very frivolous not to feel the
importance of this consideration.

In our days atheism is being revived. In going over in your memory the
symptoms of this revival, as we have pointed them out to you, you will
perceive that the direct and primitive negation of God is comparatively
rare; but that what is frequently attempted is, if I may venture so to
speak, to effect the subtraction of God. Any religious theory whatever
is put aside as inadmissible, and with some such remarks as these: "How
is it that real sciences are formed? By observation on the one hand, and
by reasoning on the other. By observation, and reasoning applied to
observation, we obtain the science of nature and the science of
humanity. But do we wish to rise above nature and humanity? We fail of
all basis of observation; and reason works in a vacuum. There is
therefore no possible way of reaching to God. Is God an object of
experience? No. Can God be demonstrated _à priori_ by syllogisms? No.