JEAN MESLIER
MESLIER'S ATHEISM
Meslier’s entire work is focused on showing the falsity of religion through many different approaches, and by doing so, he ultimately argues for a materialist atheism. His work consists of eight major proofs, each supported through numerous sub-arguments, but in an effort to keep this summary concise, I have condensed much of it into three main ideas:
i) Religion is not divine, it was created by man, so it is false
ii) Religion lacks proof and relies on blind faith, which is erroneous, thus religion is false
iii) God does not exist, so religion is false
I will cover each of these ideas in turn and provide Meslier’s main arguments for each of them. The important materialist and atheist idea he proposes, really only arises from the third idea, but I think it is important to consider the other two because they highlight issues of all religion as an idea. It is important to note that while Melsier is attacking all religions broadly, he focuses mainly on Christianity, and thus the conception of God being an infinitely perfect, all-good, all-wise, all-powerful, non-corporeal being (Meslier, 2009).
​
If you want to jump to a specific section, simply click the number listed above.
i) Religion is not divine, it was created by man, so it is false
​
Meslier begins the Testament by arguing that religion is not the divine thing people to take it to be; rather it was invented by shrewd and devious politicians who wanted to mask their true intentions, justify their tyranny, and gain power and wealth. These religious beliefs were then spread and taken up by unwitting people eventually forming a stronger and grounded religion. Consequently, a link between politics and religion became established and politicians, especially monarchies, used this link to justify that their rule as God-given and their policies ordained by God to subjugate the people however they saw fit. (Meslier, 2009). The regular people, who were caught in the fake stories and miracles of religion, take these things to be true, and in doing so, agree that their leaders are divine thus allowing themselves to be subjugated.
Meslier knows that religious people, especially Christians, or as he calls them “Christ-cultists” will vehemently reject that their religion was created by men, and so in support of his claim he traces the origins of idolatry (Meslier, 2009). He shows that in Christians own sacred text, the Book of Wisdom, they say fake idols are “the origin, the cause and the beginning and the end of all evils” (Meslier, 2009, pg. 63). Additionally, he shows that in this same text, they say fake idols were created by humans to honor people or things, which then spread to become important. The issue Meslier points out, is that Christians believe that all other religions, other than their own, were created this way, but theirs was not; however, he also shows that there has been no clear and obvious proof, since the founding of Christianity, that their religion was not made this way. (Meslier, 2009). Even the things Christians take to be proof of divine starting’s, occur only priveately and secretively in dream-like ways to a select few (i.e. Moses, Abraham, Job etc.) (Meslier, 2009). He then says, if a religion was God based, then no real God would allow suspiscion or mystery to surround it, rather they would make it clear to all there are God and theire religion is true, since it has not, it cannot be God based.
Finally, Meslier concludes that because religions cannot provide, clear, obvious and irrefutable proof that their idolatries are not made by man, even though they acknowledge others are, they cannot be divine. If they cannot be divine, then they must be man-made, and if they are man-made, they are false. (Meslier, 2009).
ii) Religion lacks proof and relies on blind faith, which is erroneous, thus religion is false
​
Meslier has raised that religions are man-made, but religious people will still object to this, and argue that the existence of miracles, fulfilled prophecies, and divine revelations and visions all are proof that it is not man-made. However, even when they are presented with evidence these things never happened or with contradicting evidence, they still respond saying it is divine because they have faith (Meslier, 2009). Faith, is the next target for Meslier’s argument, he notes that if religions base their doctrines on false things, then the religion is false, and blind faith is a primary doctrine in nearly every religion (Meslier, 2009). He argues that blind faith is not just a steadfast belief without proof, rather it is an active rejection of contradictory things to their religion, including human reason and questioning that cannot be answered with anything other than faith. Thus, if one of the primary doctrines in religion is to blindly believe in something, even when contradictory proof is present, faith is erroneous and thus, religion is false Meslier, 2009). Meslier further supports that blind faith is erroneous by showing that blind faith means holding your religion to be true and all others false. This stance has caused immeasurable suffering, wars, and persecution and thus an infinitely perfect God would not allow for blind faith to serve as a principle of doctrine, so religion is man-made and false (Meslier, 2009).
Meslier also recognizes that religions will respond by saying they do have proof that they should believe in it, and thus it is not blind-faith but rather a proven belief. However, he responds by arguing that what they take to be proof, eventually only comes from faith, and thus religion is false (Meslier, 2009). In support of this Meslier argues that proof cannot be something that does not decisively confirm the truth or falsehood of something. In other word, proof is only something that decisively shows one thing to be true and another false (Meslier, 2009). Then he turns to show that miracles, prophecies, histories, scriptures and holy texts are what all religions use as proof of truth and divinity; however, each religion also asserts that their religion is true and the others are false. But if two religions each have miracles occurring that they take to be proof its true, then that is not actually proof according to Meslier’s definition, since they both take their miracles to be proof of truth, while also believing the other religions miracles to be false. Thus, these types of “proof” shared across religions, cannot be used as decisive proof (Meslier, 2009). The only thing the religions can appeal to argue that they know their miracles are true proof and the others are not, is faith, which Meslier has already shown to be false (Meslier, 2009).
In this way, Meslier objects to all religions because they all use faith, which is errenous, they all rely on the same types of proof while denying the truth of all other religions, thus making their proof non-decisive, and the only way they can deal with this issue is relying on faith, which is itself erroneous. Thus, Meslier conclude, all religions are false, false religions cannot be made by an infinitely perfect God, and so all religions are man-made.
iii) God does not exist, so religion is false
​
This part of Meslier’s argument is perhaps the most interesting because it is not just an attack on religion, rather it is an attack on God himself. Meslier recognizes that until this point, he has only really been arguing against religion as an entity, not against the major assumption of religion, God. So, he turns now to invalidate the so-called starting point of religion, since if God can’t exist, then no religion can be based on God, thus it is man-made, and consequently it is false (Meslier, 2009). The type of God that Meslier attacks here, is the traditional Christian God, one that is an infinitely perfect, all-good, all-wise, all-powerful, non-corporeal being (Meslier, 2009).
Meslier starts his attack against God by comparing two systems to explain how the world came to exist: creation and natural formation, to show that creation is impossible (Meslier, 2009). Creation requires that the first being is the creator, whereas natural formation requires the first being is matter; regardless of what the first being is, it must be eternal and independent of any other cause (i.e. it always existed and always will and was not caused by anything else), since these are necessary condition for a first being. (Meslier, 2009). For creation, God must be the first being, and thus it must be shown that in this system, matter is not eternal or independent, since it is not the first being. Consequently, it must also be shown that God can create something (i.e. matter) from nothing, since him being the first being and cause would require he causes everything else (Meslier, 2009). Meslier notes that it is much simpler to assume that matter is the first being, since it is naturally eternal and independent, rather than assuming that God is the first being since it requires much more difficult explanatory work (Meslier, 2009).
After laying out what a creationist must show to be correct, namely that God is the first being and that he can create something from nothing, Meslier lays out arguments to show that neither of these things can be the case. His major starting point is the idea of being, which he argues has always existed and could not have been caused by anything else (Meslier, 2009). The reason is, if being had not existed, then nothing could exist now because it is impossible for something without being to give itself being; also, being could not have been caused since a cause would require that being exists (Meslier, 2009). With this in mind, he takes being to be the fundamental and first principle of the world. Consequently, he argues, there can be no creator, since being is the first being and nothing could have created it (Meslier, 2009). This objects to the idea that God could be the first being.
Meslier then turns to the next issue of creation and shows that it is impossible to create something from nothing. Meslier takes nature to be made up of only time, place, space, extension and matter, so he looks at each one to show that it is impossible to create these things (Meslier, 2009). First he looks at time and says if time had been created, then the being that created it must have occurred before time. But, to occur before something is to occur through time, thus it is impossible that a being can occur through the thing it is creating (Meslier, 2009). In other words, for a being to create time, it would have to be before time, in the sense it preceded it, but it would be before time in the sense that time would not exist yet, thus it is paradoxical for something to create time, so time cannot be created (Meslier, 2009).
Next, he turns to place, space, and extension, which are basically all the same, but he distinguishes them as: “place, a space or limited extension that contains a body, space, a more spacious extension that contains or can contain multiple bodies, and extension, space without limits, without end, which contains all beings, places and imaginable space” (Meslier 2009, pg. 389). So, for these things to be created, they could not have existed before, but without them, there would be no location for the creator to be in, since there would be nowhere for it to be. Without any of these things, there is no way the being can create, since Meslier conceives as creation being an act that requires movement, and thus without anywhere to be, there is no way the creator could move to create (Meslier, 2009). Additionally, extension is infinite, but if it was created by something, then it would necessarily rely on the creator for its properties. Thus, the creator could have made extension be smaller or larger than it is, but it is infinite, so it cannot be the case that it was create (Meslier, 2009).
Finally, Meslier turns to matter and conceives of two possible scenarios: the creator is made of matter or the creator is not. First the case where the being is made of matter themselves. Meslier says that matter is matter, so it is impossible that the being could create the same thing it is made of, just as a grain of sand cannot make new grains of sand, so too can a being made of matter not make more matter (Meslier, 2009). Also, to create means to make something new, thus it would imply that a being of matter created matter that differed from the matter of the being, which makes no sense, since matter is just matter (Meslier, 2009). Consequently, a being of matter could not have created matter. Next the case where the being is not made of matter, a being of this type would not have a body and without a body, no movement could occur which means no action can occur which means no creation can occur (Meslier, 2009). Additionally, without a body there is no way for the being to interact with the matter and influence it since matter can only move from itself (something that is not matter could not interact with matter to cause it to move or change). Without being able to move matter, it seems impossible it could create it (Meslier, 2009). So, a being not made of matter could not have created matter.
If none of the materials of nature could have been created, then there is no being that has the power of creation, thus there is no creator. Additionally, this is where Meslier’s materialism is brought to light. He conceives of a world that exists only of the aforementioned substances that are eternal and independent and it is only through the self-movement of matter combining and separating that the world comes to be the way we see today (Meslier, 2009). No God is required for creation and, in fact, no being could even have created it. If there is no being that could have created the world, then there is not an all-powerful infinitely good being, thus there is no God
Finally, Meslier argues that an infinitely perfect all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful being (i.e. God) does not exist and provides reasons, other than creation, as to why. If there was a being of this kind, it would know what was good and would desire to ensure this good existed and would have the power to create this good; thus, there would be no evil, injustice, or vice, only good, justice and virtue, however, this is not the case. The world is full of vicious and evil people who do wrong and go unpunished and enjoy a life of plenty and wealth while there are good people who suffer in life and never are rewarded for their goodness (Meslier, 2009). If a being does not know what is good, lacks the desire to ensure this good exists or lacks the power to create this good, then there is no being of this kind, so there is no God. Additionally, if everything is made in accordance with the maker or given in accordance with the giver, then if God was the maker and the giver, everything that exists should be perfect (Meslier, 2009). However, the world is full of chaos, confusion, and contradiction; thus, it is not made in accordance with a supremely perfect being (Meslier, 2009). Finally, a supremely perfect being of this kind, would want to be known and obvious to all (Meslier, 2009). If there are punishments or rewards in the afterlife for those who are wicked or just respectively, then a supremely perfect being would desire to make this known so as to ensure only good came in-life and after-death; but no being has made themselves clear and known to all, thus, there is no supremely perfect being who is omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent (Meslier, 2009).
With these arguments, and the arguments against the possibility of a creator, Meslier argues there is no God (at least in the Christian conception) and thus religion cannot be divine. If religion is cannot be divine, then it is man-made and if it is so, then it is false. In this way, Meslier provides a very through argument against religion and for atheism more generally, while providing an alterate explanation as religion being man-made an illusion and for atheism.