Jean Mesliere

Common Sense

Review by Seth Villegas, 2018

Superstition in All Ages; Common Sense. By Jean Meslier. With an Introduction and Preface by Voltaire and translation by Anna Koop. Project Gutenberg, 2006.

Voltaire describes in the “Life of Jean Meslier” that Jean Meslier was a vicar who, upon his death, published a scandalous document attacking Christian practices and beliefs. This book contains two-hundred and six chapters devoted to a variety of topics. These topics range from the problems inherent to theology to the way that priests use religion to control the community. Polemical in tone, the book can be described as an all-out attack on the very faith that Meslier appeared to be practicing for most of his life.

The headings of each chapter function almost like a prompt with a stream of consciousness style reply. As a result, the chapters tend to have a great deal of overlap in content and in argument with one another. The totality of Meslier’s perspective has to be taken with this particular writing style in mind, since the book does not feature a core position that it attempts to develop over the course of the book. As such, my review of this book will attempt to cover what I believe to be the best insights that Meslier has before describing the potential problems of this type of approach.

The single strongest point that Meslier makes is leveled against the enterprise of theology as a whole. In the apologue, Meslier suggests that theology is the only science that seeks to understand an incomprehensible object, namely God. As a result of this endeavor, theologians make apologies for their lack of definitive conclusions by appealing to a divine mystery. However, Meslier suggests that there may not be a purpose for theology if it is not able to shed any light on its object. He asks, what kind of knowledge does the discipline of theology actually open us up to receive?

It is this fundamental problem that theology cannot truly conclude anything that leads Meslier to see many contradictions in fundamental theological positions. For instance, he cites the difficulty of describing an infinite God in chapter VII. This particular theological problem, of how the infinite can interact with the finite, remains a core religious and philosophical issue since it is unclear if religion can facilitate such an interaction at all. In chapter XVIII, Meslier goes on to describe how our ideas about God cannot be verified through sensory evidence. This point connects back to Meslier’s critique of attempting to treat theology as a science because the claims of theology (at least a certain kind of theology) cannot be substantiated or confirmed.

Meslier enters into his most polemical mode when he speaks about the church and the people who benefit from the functions of the church. In chapter CVII, he says that the church explicitly takes advantage of a superstitious and gullible public. These beliefs become especially dangerous when they are used by princes and kings, a danger which he describes in chapter CXXXIX. In particular, Meslier worries about the way in which religious differences between Christian sects are used to justify violence against other people. Since the theological differences themselves cannot be settled by means of concrete evidence, it would seem that to place a great deal of importance on theological differences is foolish at best. However, Meslier suggests that most kings are only religious to justify their own power. He argues in CXLIII that God should be a force of restraint upon sovereign power, but Christianity seem to amplify rather than restrain the vices of kings.

The final argument that I will mention from Meslier is his assertion that morality needs no appeal to a divine being. In chapter CLXXI, Meslier says that the question of the existence of God is irrelevant when it comes to defining the moral duties of every person. Good and evil, it would seem for Meslier, are self-evident concepts that most people should be able to perceive through an observation of nature. In fact, he argues that morality can only be accessed through reason in chapter CLXXX. Philosophy allows for the moral problems to be engaged with directly, ultimately allowing a degree of specification of behavior that theology cannot provide.

Many of the theological problems that Meslier attacks continue to remain problems for theologians and religious people in the present day. In contemporary theological debates, theologians disagree on how important the natural world is to knowledge about God. How those theologians treat the infinite-finite contrast, an issue which Meslier touches upon, drastically affects their take on the natural world. For Meslier, the natural world needs to be investigated for evidence. In his view, the lack of evidence does not mean that God is beyond the natural world (and thus not subject to investigation by natural means) but rather that God is likely a fiction. God should also actively improve the lives of people, especially by means of protecting the common people from tyrants. However, if religious practice has the effect of making the people easier to take advantage of, then it is easy to see why Meslier sees Christianity as dangerous.

It is unfortunate that Meslier felt that he had to conceal his views from his community for the majority of his life. Considering the tangible dangers that could have befallen Meslier, it is perhaps not surprising that he made such a choice. I believe that there are two primary effects of this choice. First, Meslier’s arguments are perhaps less developed than they could have been. Though this is purely speculation on my part, I can imagine from the particular writing style of these chapters that Meslier likely wrote them each in one or two sittings at most. Thus, while the chapters are bound in a book, a book-length development of major points is not made. Second, his choice to publish the document after his death prevented any kind of dialogue from being created. Proponents of religion therefore had no chance to rebut his arguments and Meslier could not have rebutted those arguments in turn.

I believe that this latter point is important for us to consider today. If we have a sincere interest in investigating the truth, then our points must be open to criticism, perhaps especially from people who have a worldview markedly different from ours. Religious tyranny has certainly prevented productive metaphysical dialogue from happening in the past. However, scientism has a similar potential to silence its opponents simply because they have begun from a different vantage point. Even the strongest of arguments may have individual points on which it is weak. Open dialogue and debate can serve to expose those weaknesses, such that the entire argument may benefit.

In the case of something as complicated as the on-going debate between science and religion, Meslier’s book serves as an example of many arguments that can be used against Christianity and religious practice in general. However, we should also see that the over use of aggressive polemics obscures the issues at play. My hope is that the people like Meslier in our time would feel comfortable enough to speak their points so that we might all benefit from their insights. In that way, our worldviews might be fallible and correctible rather than dogmatic, allowing us to at least be clearer about the kinds of problems which have empirical answers and those that do not.

Review by Melissa Grimm, 2009

Superstition in All Ages; Common Sense. By Jean Meslier. With an Introduction and Preface by Voltaire and translation by Anna Koop. Project Gutenberg, 2006.

Voltaire offers an Introduction to Jean Meslier’s Common Sense followed by an Abstract at the end of the priest’s manuscript. According to Voltaire’s Introduction Jean Meslier was born in the village of Mazerny in 1678. Meslier attended seminary, where he focused on Descartes. After leaving seminary he became the vicar of a small parish named Bue in Champagne, France and was appointed the curator of Etripegny. Voltaire writes that Meslier was known for “the austerity of his habits,” that he would give the remainder of his salary to the poor annually and that his only confidants were two fellow curators—MM. Voiri and Delavaux. Meslier died in 1733, leaving behind three copies of a manuscript entitled My Testament. The manuscript was Meslier’s testament against religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular. Given that he had spent his life in the ministry of the Church, Meslier attached an explanatory note to the manuscript as his defense against this apparent contradiction (11). Meslier, addressing his parishioners, writes: “The sympathy which I manifested for your troubles saves me from the least of suspicion.” He continues, “I carefully avoided exhorting you to bigotry, and I spoke to you as rarely as possible of our unfortunate dogmas,” and he adds, “What a disdain I had for my ministry, and particularly for that superstitious Mass, and those ridiculous administrations of sacraments, especially if I was compelled to perform them with the solemnity which awakened all your piety and all your good faith” (12). Voltaire does note that while, ostensibly, Meslier did not publish this manuscript while alive out of fear of being sentenced to death, Thomas Woolston, a doctor of Cambridge, had publicly sold a treatise against religious beliefs in London without facing legal consequence (12).

Voltaire’s Abstract of Meslier’s manuscript offers summaries of the priest’s proofs against the existence of a Deity as well as his proofs against the Divinely inspired nature of Biblical texts and the infallibility of Church doctrine. Within Meslier’s system of proofs, that which is actual must be rational, and that which is rational must be supported by empirical evidence. One of Voltaire’s summaries examines Meslier’s analyses of the doctrine of the Trinity. It is argued that the doctrine requires that there be three distinct personages, each equally and completely God, yet each with distinct functionalities. God came first, God begat Christ, and through the work of both God and Christ the Holy Spirit came to exist. Yet, all three are held to be coeternal. Governed by the law of causality and principle of non-contradiction, Meslier finds this doctrine to be both “absurd” and “repugnant,” in that it contradicts both rules (138). Granting this contradiction, it is only through faith then that a Christian can come to reconcile his/herself with the mystery of the doctrine of the trinity. And such faith and belief in mysteries, Meslier argues, requires that an individual relinquish his/her claim to reason (common sense) (139).

An excerpt from Jean Meslier’s preface bears citing, as I believe it both captures the priest’s general attitude towards religion and the religious, as expressed throughout Common Sense, and demonstrates his use of rhetoric. The excerpt follows:

In a word, whoever will consult common sense upon religious opinions, and will carry into this examination the attention given to objects of ordinary interest, will easily perceive that these opinions have no solid foundation; that all religion is but a castle in the air; that Theology is but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system; that it is but a long tissue of chimeras and contradictions; that it presents to all the different nations of the earth only romances devoid of probability, of which the hero himself is made up of qualities impossible to reconcile, his name having the power to excite in all hearts respect and fear, is found to be but a vague word, which men continually utter, being able to attach to it only ideas or qualities as are belied by the facts, or which evidently contradict each other. The notion of this imaginary being, or rather the word by which we designate him, would be no consequence did it not cause ravages without number upon the earth. Born into the opinion that his phantom is for them a very interesting reality, men, instead of wisely concluding from its incomprehensibility that they are exempt from thinking of it, on the contrary, conclude that they can not occupy themselves enough about it, that they must meditate upon it without ceasing, reason without end, and never lose sight of it. (13-14)

Meslier is not a relativist. There is a verifiable and assertable truth, but it is not Truth as determined by or contingent upon the existence of a sentient deity. The actual manuscript reads in a somewhat more disjointed manner. There are 206 chapters; some are 1-2 paragraphs in length while others equal roughly a page in length. Themes running throughout are, as can be ascertained from the excerpt above; 1) a complete rejection of god(s), which then leads to the 2) complete rejection of all religions, and therefore a 3) complete rejection of all experiences that cannot be accounted for empirically, and the consequent 4) establishment of a system which accounts for human existence based solely on a reality governed by Reason—common sense.

Chapters 115 (CXV)-119 (CXIX) provide a cursory view of Meslier’s system of thought. In chapter 115, The Proof That Religion Is Not Necessary, Is That It Is Unintelligible, Meslier argues that if to follow the correct religion correctly was the highest imperative and only means in attaining salvation, as ordained by a good God, then logically the complete lack of consensus in this area would not exist (64).

In chapter 116, All Religions Are Ridiculed By Those Of Opposite Though Equally Insane Belief, Meslier draws his reader’s attention to the fact that though each religious faith makes equally improbable theological claims, adherents of each faith are blind to their own preposterous claims while fully aware of the logical “absurdities” the other faiths (64-65).

In chapter 117, Opinion Of A Celebrated Theologian, Meslier cites a famous theologian (though the theologian remains un-named) who made light of the fact that within Christian religious discourse it is accepted that an immaterial Being created the material world, with which it shares no commonalities. And further, this immaterial Being is unchanging and yet it is the source of all change in the material world (65).

In chapter 118, The Deist’s God Is No Less Contradictory, No Less Fanciful, Than the Theologian’s God, Meslier doesn’t quite seem to move away from a Christian understanding of God in his attack on the deist’s god. His argument remains interesting however. If God is just, and has permitted free will, then to punish persons for practicing this free will would be unjust, and therefore a logical contradiction (65-66).

In chapter 119, We Do Not Prove At All The Existence Of A God By Saying That In All Ages Every Nation Has Acknowledged Some Kind Of Divinity, Meslier offers examples of facts that had been held by general consensus, which were then proven wrong through scientific discoveries (empirical evidence)—such as the “flatness” of the earth. He argues therefore, that though a majority of the human population may believe in the existence of a Deity/deities, this majority consensus cannot be used as a proof for the existence of such a being/beings (66).

Throughout his manuscript Jean Meslier’s disenchantment with religion(s) seems to return over and over again to the failure of religion(s) to produce promised ends. He argues that there is no evidence that religious persons are any more moral or ethical because of their belief systems and that in fact religion appears to be the leading cause of both personal and societal evils. In chapter 15 (XV) Meslier asserts that all religion was created by legislators as a means to better maintain control over their subjects (20). Though it is important to note, that in chapter 10 (X) Meslier remarks that the origin of all religion arises from the fear of the unknown (19).

In conclusion, a reader will find that in Common Sense challenges brought against the existence of a Deity/deities and of religion in general are exhaustive. Meslier’s arguments are well thought through and contain no equivocations, which causes the reader to—if not expressly agree with all that the priest has to say—approach his work with great respect.