Is it better to trust to the evidence of the senses? They sometimes deceive, and never give information save as to externals. The innermost core escapes them.
Reason offers more safeguards, being immovable and impersonal; but in order that it may be manifested it is necessary that it should incarnate itself. Then, reason becomes my reason; a rule is of little value if it is false. Nothing can show such a rule to be right.
We are recommended to control it with the senses; but they may make the darkness thicker. From a confused sensation a defective law will be inferred, which, later, will obstruct the clear view of things.
Morality remains.
This would make God descend to the level of the useful, as if our wants were the measure of the Absolute.
As for the evidence—denied by the one, affirmed by the other—it is its own criterion. M. Cousin has demonstrated it.
"I see no longer anything but revelation," said Bouvard. "But, to believe it, it is necessary to admit two preliminary cognitions—that of the body which has felt, and that of the intelligence which has perceived; to admit sensation and reason. Human testimonies! and consequently open to suspicion."
Pécuchet reflected—folded his arms. "But we are about to fall into the frightful abyss of scepticism."
In Bouvard's opinion it frightened only weak brains.
"Thank you for the compliment," returned Pécuchet. "However, there are indisputable facts. We can arrive at truth within a certain limit."