Monday Meslier: 191 – What a Happy and Great Revolution Would Take Place in the Universe if Philosophy Was Substituted for Religion!

Philosophers, in all ages, have taken the part that seemed destined for the ministers of religion.

Jean Meslier Portrait

Your host, Jean Meslier

The hatred of the latter for philosophy was never more than professional jealousy. All men accustomed to think, instead of seeking to injure each other, should unite their efforts in combating errors, in seeking truth, and especially in dispelling the prejudices from which the sovereigns and subjects suffer alike, and whose upholders themselves finish, sooner or later, by becoming the victims.

In the hands of an enlightened government the priests would become the most useful of citizens. Could men with rich stipends from the State, and relieved of the care of providing for their own subsistence, do anything better than to instruct themselves in order to be able to instruct others? Would not their minds be better satisfied in discovering truth than in wandering in the labyrinths of darkness? Would it be any more difficult to unravel the principles of man’s morals, than the imaginary principles of Divine and theological morals? Would ordinary men have as much trouble in understanding the simple notions of their duties, as in charging their memories with mysteries, unintelligible words, and obscure definitions which are impossible for them to understand? How much time and trouble is lost in trying to teach men things which are of no use to them. What resources for the public benefit, for encouraging the progress of the sciences and the advancement of knowledge, for the education of youth, are presented to well-meaning sovereigns through so many monasteries, which, in a great number of countries devour the people’s substance without an equivalent.

But superstition, jealous of its exclusive empire, seems to have formed but useless beings. What advantage could not be drawn from a multitude of cenobites of both sexes whom we see in so many countries, and who are so well paid to do nothing. Instead of occupying them with sterile contemplations, with mechanical prayers, with monotonous practices; instead of burdening them with fasts and austerities, let there be excited among them a salutary emulation that would inspire them to seek the means of serving usefully the world, which their fatal vows oblige them to renounce. Instead of filling the youthful minds of their pupils with fables, dogmas, and puerilities, why not invite or oblige the priests to teach them true things, and so make of them citizens useful to their country? The way in which men are brought up makes them useful but to the clergy, who blind them, and to the tyrants, who plunder them.

------ divider ------

Here is one where I do not completely agree with Meslier. For one thing, I think he is over-optimistic that “In the hands of an enlightened government the priests would become the most useful of citizen.” We see over and over again that philosophers are capable, even fond of, embracing attitudes that would make them more or less plug-compatible with priests, in terms of uselessness. Whether it’s Peter Boghossian, Sam Harris, or Alvin Plantinga philosophers often serve the establishment, plying heaping shovel-fuls of bullshit.

I think Meslier’s mistake is that, being a man of the cloth, and taking his viewpoint from within the corrupt system of religion, he imagines that philosophy is uncorruptable. I hope he took that delusion to his death; he seems like he needed cheering up.

But superstition, jealous of its exclusive empire, seems to have formed but useless beings. Clearly Meslier didn’t know enough philosophers.


  1. says

    I came to the same conclusion you did. Philosophy can lead to the very same poisonous divisiveness; the endless arguments, the splintering off of one faction after another and so on. After all, when you come right down to it, religion is also a form of philosophy.

  2. springa73 says

    I think that in the eighteenth century the term “philosophy” included what we would today consider science, so Meslier probably meant physics, chemistry, and biology as much as ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics when he talks about replacing religion with philosophy.

    Of course, people working in the natural sciences have taught and done some pretty horrible things, so the point of the post and comments is still quite valid!