epticism.

"There is no one, however, who can fail to be interested in these
questions. For, although he may be excluded from moral influences
by the want of a good disposition, yet, even in this case, enough
remains to lead him to fear a divine existence and a future state.
To this end, no more is necessary than that he can at least have no
certainty that there is no such being, and no future life; for, to
make this conclusion demonstratively certain, he must be able to
prove the impossibility of both; and this assuredly no rational man
can undertake to do. This negative belief, indeed, cannot produce
either morality or good dispositions, but can operate in an
analogous fashion, by powerfully repressing the outbreak of evil
tendencies.

"But it will be said, is this all that Pure Reason can do when it
gazes out beyond the bounds of experience? Nothing more than two
articles of faith? Common sense could achieve as much without
calling the philosophers to its counsels!

"I will not here speak of the service which philosophy has rendered
to human reason by the laborious efforts of its criticism, granting
that the outcome proves to be merely negative: about that matter
something is to be said in the following section. But do you then
ask, that the knowledge which interests all men shall transcend the
common understanding and be discovered for you only by
philosophers? The very thing which you make a reproach, is the best
confirmation of the justice of the previous conclusions, since it
shows that which could not, at first, have been anticipated:
namely, that in those matters which concern all men alike, nature
is not guilty of distributing her gifts with partiality; and that
the highest philosophy, in dealing with the most important concerns
of humanity, is able to take us no further than the guidance which
she affords to the commonest understanding."[44]

In short, nothing can be proved or disproved, respecting either the
distinct existence, the substance, or the durability of the soul. So
far, Kant is at one with Hume. But Kant adds, as you cannot disprove the
immortality of the soul, and as the belief therein is very useful for
moral purposes, you may assume it. To which, had Hume lived half a
century later, he would probably have replied, that, if morality has no
bett