1

The modern era, stretching from the beginning of the seventeenth century to the beginning of the nineteenth century, was an interesting time to be a philosopher. The Scientific Revolution was in full swing, inventions and discoveries were being happened upon every single day, and the realignment of what it means to be human needed to be taken into account for these new times and trials. It was during this time of alteration of the ideals of mankind in which Franois-Marie Arouet, better known by his pen name Voltaire, was born. Voltaire was interesting character in the world of philosophy at this time. Before now, philosophers tended to presuppose the existence of God, as well as only argue for the standpoint of the church that the philosopher accepted as true. However, even though Voltaire presupposed the existence of God using the Teleological, or the Watchmaker, argument, he vehemently opposed the position of the Western organized religions, as he disagreed with the basis of those religions. However, to understand why Voltaire thought that the Western Churches1 were not actual manifestations of why or how we should be worshiping God, we first need to look at what God was to him. God, to Voltaire, is more of an eternal force than a personal savior. He is unique and eternal, the foundation of all morality and punishes those who attempt to poison the minds of others. The worship of this God, however, does not coincide with what traditional Western Churches though of how to worship Him. Allan Arkush explains in his essay Voltaire on Judaism and Christianity: True worshipsuperstitious rites. In general, a good religion givesnot of Voltaire states, of moral actions, participation of God consists, very little in order them to believe men much instruction morality things, injurious to the Deity and pernicious in dogmas, rendering without rendering human race. It does not employ executionersthem just impossible, on the them absurd.globe with blood for the sake of to uphold contradictory and their effectnorsophisms. It neverIt does not its beliefs,Accordingitthe true religion, finally, all men are equal in the eyes does inundate attempts force anyone to believe unintelligible "and anything.father choseit is therefore absurdof his children to exterminate of their creator, common his name."2 a small the number and impious to say that the others in Voltaire also makes the distinction of state religion and theological religion. Again, Arkush explains: In the entry entitledbetween state religion and theological religion. State draws a distinction "Religion" in his Philosophical Dictionary, by law, religion is concerned with external things,rest, rites established Voltaire the maintenance of temples, dayscan never causeworshipand public asreligion of morality. "A consecrated to registers of circumcision or baptism,it and such capable of supporting civil state religion prove to be tolerant of other religions. Theological religion, seems, state religion, is concerned withis at least teaching may contain, it all sorts of superstitions, but the State order andItmy "the source of allany turmoil."propagationimaginable; it is the unlike of fanaticism and civil discord; it is the enemy of mankind."3 dogmas. is the follies and turmoils of religious mother

As we can see by the definition of the two types of religion, the Western Churches fall into both categories. The Jewish tradition falls within the state religion, while the Christian tradition falls within the theological tradition, although both traditions have elements of both religions. The reason that we can say that the two traditions fall into different parts of the religion distinction is that the Jewish tradition did not have a set school of dogma until their return to Israel from Babylonian exile, and was a loose collection of ideas, morals, and laws before then. Voltaire also thought that Christianity was originally founded as a sect of Judaism to oppose those that already existed, and after the death of Jesus, was transformed into a new religion. However, the Christian tradition is completely based on the dogmas that were founded after the death of Jesus. The thinkers of the Christian tradition based their entire religious system on the ideas of Platonism and the dogmas therein. Jesus himself did not make the rules of dogma, and only suggested that people live their lives within a certain moral code. Jesus put forth a state religion, and his followers convoluted it into a theological religion. Voltaire addresses this issue in his work the Philosophical Dictionary: I sawof man of gentle, simple countenance, who to pass to reach the sages' seemed to me on be to these thirty-five years old. From find his castIcompassionate glanceshis hands piles a Iwhitened pierced, and his ribs flayed with whip cuts. "Good about bones, which had abode. was side to him,acrosspossible swollen and bleeding, to be in this astonished to afar he likewise, his just seen one who wasfeet for ahadvery hateful way, but there Heavens! " I said between his torture and yours. Wicked sage, and "is state?comparison treated just man, priests is no I have poisoned him;itis it by priestsin a judgesathat you have been wicked judges monsters?" "They were hypocrites." "Ah! That says"And so cruelly these He answered word and courtesy--"Yes." who were assassinated?" by this single with muchthey mustSocrates did, everything; you to death. Had you then proved to them, as have that condemned I understand goddess, and that Mercury did not know at all that theplanet were notwere all arrant ignoramuses. Their not a god?" "No, these a Moonis; they in question. My compatriots wasto teach them a planets was not a whatreligion, then?""Not at all; IGreeks." "You wanted superstitions were quite heart and from fellow-creature asto them simply--'Love Godwholeall different your those of the said yourself, for that is man's with new Judge if this precept is not as old as the universe; judge if I brought your a new religion. I did not stop telling them that I had come not to duty.' the law but to fulfill it; I had observed all their rites; circumcised them all were, baptized as were the most zealous among them, like them destroy Corban; I observed the Passover as they did, eating standing up aslambthe I paid cooked with lettuces.this templefriends went to pray in the temple; a they all even frequented I a single exception."4 my friends their laws without and my after my death; in a word, I fulfilled Voltaire also disagrees with the notion that has become popular in his time, first propagated by Gottfried Leibniz, that the world that we currently live in is the best of all possible worlds. In fact, one of his most well known works, Candide, is entirely based on the premise of a man who was taught, and truly believed, that the world we are in is the best of all possible worlds, is faced with an increasingly barbarous and maddening world, only to conclude that this is not the best of all possible worlds.

Voltaire frequently mocks this idea of Leibniz's, with the character Pangloss, Candide's teacher in the beginning of the book, teaching the idea of the best of all possible worlds, saying: Itsusceptible to improvement. Just say that nosespurpose,not beto nothing could and other they are: for everything has been made to serve a are designedso support is can be demonstrated he wouldhave how thingsfit them. legs were than spectacles, andfit trousers, havewe see trousers to thus his excellency constructed quarried,castle; and spectacles. It'simportantthat Rockthe to indeed weand turned intomost obvious baron in was made very beautiful cut, best housed.the castles,made to be eaten, and we to and has pork be naturally Pigs provincethroughout be taken seriously; they that those who have argued eat a be betterto bethe year. So I concludewere that all is oughtcan't the well 5 should have said that nothing could A personal aside must be taken here, because I have many complaints for the best of all possible worlds argument. Voltaire and I share many complaints with this argument, the first of which is that, if god was an omniscient, omnipotent and omni-benevolent entity, then how can there be suffering in the best of all possible worlds? Voltaire makes his counterargument that God is no longer involved actively with our world, and our world and universe were created on the free will of his being, not out of a sense of necessity. However, I must bow away from Voltaire on this point, because he begins with the assumption that a god exists, which I do not include on my personal philosophy. I will explain why at a later time, as we need to deal with one issue at a time. Many thinkers, both now and in Voltaire's day, have accused Voltaire of having antisemitic leanings. However, one cannot do justice to this claim. The antisemitism shown by Voltaire has nothing to do with hatred toward the Jewish people, but rather as a way of attacking the basis of Christianity, which he considered to be a bigger threat. His rational goes as such: if one can break the foundation of a building, the rest of the building will come crumbling down after it. If Christianity came from the womb of Judaism, then if one can disprove and harass Judaism, then one is also disproving and harassing Christianity. Voltaire believes that Judaism gave rise to Christianity because Jesus remained a faithful Jew throughout his life, and did not have the intention (at least according to Voltaire) to break away from the Jewish tradition, but only to create a new sect within the Jewish tradition. Above anything, Voltaire was a deist. He thinks that the existence of God is self-evident in the nature of the Universe. Infinite complexity, such as the Universe, requires a creator, much like the

complexity of a watch requires a watchmaker. He has been quoted saying "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."6 Shirley Roe explains this idea of deism more in depth in her essay Voltaire Versus Needham: Atheism, Materialism and the Generation of Life: The threeof were the uniformity that Voltaire adopted fromfree designer of principal the the world view matter, conceptions and constancy of physical law,Newtonian passivity testified to and deistic belief an intelligent cause, that a watch the universe.watchmaker, asexistencethatan intelligent and writings until universe a Voltaire's existence ofit, of the order and harmony of the the the he put Newtonian his demanded Furthermore, he adopted will rather thanscientific in claiming pervaded voluntarism 7 his death... is a product of divine that the world necessity. It was Voltaire's search for the perfect deistic religion that lead him to be enamored with the religions of the East, and in particular, China. During his time, we began to see greater trade with Eastern countries, such as India, China and Japan, and a greater influx of these nation's cultures into the areas of European control. Merchants traveling to the Far East came back with art, literature and philosophy tomes, as well as consumer goods such as spices and silk. Confucius, after his works were translated into French, was an extreme influence on the mind of Voltaire. Arnold Rowbotham explains this in his essay Voltaire, Sinophile, stating: Confuciusfor revealed religion, the the philosopher who had found a Voltaire was concerned, substitute formless, as forformlessness produced tolerance. virtue rather extremely represented for replies toidealquestion of athis cult was Etreliens than a defect, for its verydestroy the the Deist. That to saveIn the West as chinois his he would to achieve such a result, he would not willingly with mandarin not as dogma whole of China was a of the [sic] to whether the affirmation that, Voltaire considered tolerance topriest his soul the destroy acharacter.8 be the basis of Chinese single barn. However, not all aspects of Eastern religions give Voltaire a good feeling. The conception of the Future Life in the Chinese religion was hard to understand, even for those who were technically masters of the Chinese religion. Confucius admitted to being agnostic about whether or not the Future Life actually exists, which gave Voltaire some trouble. Voltaire was equally disturbed by the Taoist doctrine that the soul, after death, was reabsorbed by the universe as matter, and the Buddhist doctrine of metempsychosis, or the transmigration of the soul, and the reincarnation of souls. Speaking of toleration, one of the foundational beliefs that Voltaire holds and uses to judge how close the teachings of a religion are to those of the perfect religion is that of toleration of all peoples. Voltaire devotes an entire treatise on the issue of toleration, being named, somewhat aptly, A Treatise

On Tolerance. An excerpt from this treatise states how the religions and cultures of his day will react to the idea that tolerance should be the center of how one thinks about the world: It does not ought toany greatoneas our brothers. go evencall a Turk, asay that require tolerate art another. I elocution to further and Christiansto look upon all men or studied will What! not all that Jew, we ought father,my brother? Yes, of course; for are we prove children of andsame the a Siamese, and the creatures of the same God? But these they are veryimaum [sic], Ius a talapoin,could staggershould tell them that people despise us andAnd or idolaters! Well, I to speak to them headstrong like this: an wrong. call think that I were then, I the something pride of "This globes, inhigh, immensity of very inconsiderableare lost. the creation; globe, which is no other five those hardly visiblemore than a to some of part of Man, in space which we together with many about littlefeet that is certainly a me, forin point, rolls, his neighbors who is but oneor South Africa: Listen beings hundred millions of us little insects Arabia of me. earth, but my ant-hill alone isGod of all these worlds has tonine says enlightened the There are about who alone be happy, for all eternity; those the wretched."me God who holds all the rest in horror and all the rest eternally cherished by upon my spot who live with will inhabit They would stop methen to pacify them, but that would not be veryfoolish a speech?" I I should and be obliged to answer could have made so easy.9 After which should try ask, "What madman them, "It is yourselves." As we can see from this quote, Voltaire's belief in the universality of tolerance comes from a different understanding of God than the Western traditions. Why would god choose one people to be the chosen people if he has omnibenevolence? The answer is that the chosen people are not really chosen, but only think that they are chosen to increase their own power over others in the realm of religion. An established religion, to Voltaire, is the easiest way for wicked men to gather as much power as they feel they want, and dominate a people to doing what they command, no matter how nonsensical or irrational that commandment is. Voltaire had many good points within his many writings. However, it is now time for this paper to change gears. We now must go into an author's response to several different points to Voltaire's points. The responses that I will make now will be on three different points that Voltaire makes: The Teleological Argument for God, the nature of Christianity and Judaism, and the idea of tolerance. The problem that I have with the teleological argument for the existence of God is that is assumes that complexity cannot raise from itself. Within the nature of human understanding, there is a necessity for human constructs to have creators; this fact cannot be avoided. We cannot say that the computer that is sitting on my desk was not inspired by the ENIAC team in the 1940's, who created the world's first computer. We cannot say that the music that I am listening to was not created in the mind of the singer and songwriter Beck, because the song is fully his conception.

However, this only applies to the constructions of humans. Life itself is not a human construct, but exists entirely without human interaction.10 With the new knowledge that we humans have, we are able to conceive of a universe without a God, without a creator, without the problems that come around with the idea that a god does exist. Nevertheless, this gives rise to its own problems, such as the existence of the human mind, the nature of human existence itself, and the nature of morality. However, these are topics for another time. The teleological argument also does not exclusively prove the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. It only proves that there is an intelligent being out there that created the Universe, but not an infinite, infallible, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent entity. Voltaire even admits this in his work Trait de mtaphysique, saying ... from this sole argument I cannot conclude anything further than that it is probable that an intelligent and superior being has skillfully prepared and fashioned the matter. I cannot conclude from that alone that this being has made matter out of nothing and that he is infinite in every sense.11 However, to say that just because I disagree with his stance on the existence of God does not mean that I entirely disagree with the ideas of Voltaire. I agree with him on the nature of the Western Churches, and by extension, many other religions. The problem that I see with Christianity and Judaism is that they naturally and inherently spread the ideals of intolerance, bigotry, and hate. Everyone raised in a religion nowadays believes, so vehemently, that their religion is the only true one that they forget, at least for the Christian tradition, that Jesus basically said that we should try and stop acting like arrogant imbeciles to each other every once in a while, and love one another. People tend to forget that Jesus says that we should try loving one another, and instead focus on the dogmas and teachings of the power structures that came afterward.

Another teachings of Voltaire's that I agree with is the idea tolerance. For a society to function properly, we need to be able to cooperate with each other, otherwise we get an Ayn Rand-ian dystopia were the only thing that people end up caring about is profit and goods, other than the lives of the people that they love, and the well-being of others. Part of the idea of cooperation is the idea of tolerance. We need to be able to tolerate the failings and grievances of others to an extent (I say to an extent because the freedoms of one person end when they start infringing on the rights of another). When we stop tolerating, cooperation becomes out of the question. I mean, look at the United States political climate right now. Neither party is tolerating the other party, and now we have a hyperpartisan system in which we are unable to get anything done with cooperation from both parties. It seems as though the two parties have drawn a line in the sand, and neither are ready to cross it. However, this is also a topic for further discussion at a different time. What conclusion can we draw from this? Voltaire was a man of many ideals, the prime of which was the ideal of tolerance, and the idea that God is not the god that is worshiped in the Western Churches, but a god that is no longer involved in the world, and only created us because of some divine science experiment. He also thinks that the Western Churches that have got the worship of their god wrong, because he cannot and should not be worshiped by silly, irrational rituals, but by doing virtuous actions. I tend to agree with him on these points, but I must detract from him on this thought that the teleological argument for the existence of God is true.