This is their practice in all natural, mathematical, moral, and political science.

And why not the same, I ask, in the theological and religious?
Why must conclusions of this nature be alone rejected on the general presumption of the insufficiency of human reason, without any particular discussion of the evidence?
Is not such an unequal conduct a plain proof of prejudice and passion?
Our senses, you say, are fallacious; our understanding erroneous; our ideas, even of the most familiar objects, extension, duration, motion, full of absurdities and contradictions.

You defy me to solve the difficulties, or reconcile the repugnancies which you discover in them.

I have not capacity for so great an undertaking: I have not leisure for it: I perceive it to be superfluous.

Your own conduct, in every circumstance, refutes your principles, and shows the firmest reliance on all the received maxims of science, morals, prudence, and behaviour.
I shall never assent to so harsh an opinion as that of a celebrated writer [L'Arte de penser], who says, that the Sceptics are not a sect of philosophers: They are only a sect of liars.