by Jean Meslier
Here is what he says on this subject: “The living,” he says, “at least know they must die, but those who are dead,” he continues, “no longer know anything and expect no further reward; feelings like hate or love, or any desire no longer affect them, and they no longer participate in what goes on in this world. Go, then,” he says, “go on peacefully[749], and gladly, enjoying the goods you have, eat and drink in peace of the fruits of your labor, rejoicing with your friends and with the one you love, for this,” he says, “is all the good you can expect in life.” These words clearly confirm everything I just said; thus, it’s quite futile for our God-cultists and our Christ-cultists to flatter themselves about enjoying such great felicity after their death, since at that point they won’t even have minds to think their own thoughts. Indeed, how could they even think, since they won’t then exist? We often see, even during life, many sorts of illnesses or infirmities, in the throes of which people are rendered completely incapable of thinking of anything, or having any opinion, either of themselves or of anything else! A simple heart failure, for example, fainting, a state of languor, or some similar condition is liable to put us in that state, even though we’re still alive, and our body is still complete and entire. If, then, a simple illness, which only upsets the economy or the proper temperament of the humors and which only prevents the functioning of the senses, without destroying them, can take away all feelings and all knowledge, with all the more reason will death, which destroys us completely, deprive us of all feeling and all knowledge! But what? Do we not see, daily even, and don’t we have the daily experience of a deep and gentle sleep, which slowly knocks us down without doing any harm, which takes away all our thoughts, feelings, and knowledge? Having such strong proofs of this truth, and having such obvious daily experience of what happens to us, on this matter, it’s a wonder that people who seem so intelligent should have such opposite views and that they are able to convince themselves that after death people remain full of life, sensation, and knowledge, and that people are, more than ever, in a state of happiness or misery, with the righteous enjoying perfect bliss, possessing God eternally in Heaven, and the wicked suffering the eternal torments in Hell. It’s a wonder, I say, that intelligent people can entertain such thoughts; for it’s a kind of insanity to get such ideas in one’s mind, and it’s even a madness that often goes as far as fanaticism, as it appears in those who get these ideas in their mind somewhat firmly. For Religion is a true breeding ground for fanatics, it's the theater where they play their characters best; this is also why those who are truly wise and even a little enlightened by Reason, will not indulge in such opinions, and it’s also the reason why I’ve said that even most of those who maintain them by their authority, or who teach them to others by their false professional duty, don’t believe themselves in what their tell others on the subject, and never trouble themselves to practice what they so carefully teach others to do, to win this supposedly incomparable happiness of enjoying eternal bliss in heaven, or to stave off the supposedly terrible misery of suffering the punishments of Hell forever; and we must expect that such opinions will not be completely abolished for a long time, if those who maintain them by their authority or who teach them to others by their professional obligation didn’t find such lavish and copious rewards and advantages in the support and preservation of these public errors, by keeping the poor wretchedly captive under their tyrannical rule, with the maxim of their policy, that the masses need to be ignorant of many true things, and to believe many false ones.
76. THE EVILS, THE MISERY, THE VICES, AND THE WICKEDNESS OF MEN PLAINLY SHOW THAT THERE IS NO INFINITELY SUPREME, OR INFINITELY WISE BEING WHO COULD PREVENT THEM.
But let’s return to our supposed being, who is said to be supremely and infinitely perfect, if He were truly as our God-cultists say, He would indubitably and infinitely good and infinitely wise, this proposition is undeniable. But it is evident that there is no being, who is infinitely good and infinitely wise; thus, there is no being which is supremely and infinitely perfect, and consequently, nothing they call God.
That there is no being which is infinitely good and infinitely wise, here, manifestly, is the proof:
It’s that, if there were such a being, He would have a perfect love of goodness, peace, justice, virtue, orderliness everywhere and He would protect the good, the righteous, and the innocent everywhere, whereas He would infinitely hate evil, all the vices, all injustice, all wickedness, and would punish the wicked everywhere; for, being omnipotent, as He is also thought to be, He wouldn’t fail to procure all the true good things, and to establish and maintain order everywhere. In the same way, if He truly hated all evil, all vice, all injustice, and all wickedness, being omnipotent, as I’ve just said, He wouldn’t fail to ensure that there was no evil, no injustice, no vice, or any disorder anywhere, or at least He wouldn’t fail to punish all those who did what was wrong, or who maliciously caused some evil, because it’s only right for goodness and wisdom to do all possible good and to prevent all the evil, as much as possible, just as it would be right for an infinite light to spread its clarity and to dissipate darkness everywhere, and as it would be right for an infinite heat to spread everywhere, and to drive out coldness everywhere. For, just as light is incompatible with darkness and heat is incompatible with coldness, just as also, and with all the more reason, an infinite goodness and wisdom should be incompatible with all sorts of evils and misery, with all sorts of vices and disorders, and with all sorts of wickedness. That if an infinite goodness and wisdom are incompatible with all sorts of ills, all sorts of vices, and all sorts of mischief and disorder, there couldn’t therefore be any evil, any vice, any disorder, or any wickedness in the world under the power and government of an all-powerful being, if He were, as they say, infinitely good and infinitely wise, because He would prevent by His omnipotent goodness and wisdom, any evil from occurring and any injustice from being committed, along with any wickedness or disorder. But it is evident that the world is almost full of evils and misery, men are brim-full of vice, error, and wickedness, their government is full of injustice and tyranny, nearly everywhere all anyone sees is an overflowing of vices and wickedness; discord and division hold near-universal sway; the upright and the innocent who are oppressed groan nearly everywhere; the poor are nearly everywhere in famine and suffering without help, support, or consolation. At the same time, the wicked, the ungodly, and those who are least worthy to live are often nevertheless seen living in prosperity, joy, honor, and in an abundance all kinds of blessings; nobody can deny anything I’m saying in this regard, I’m far from saying everything; for anyone who sought to make a detailed inventory of all the pitiful miseries in the world, as well as all the vices and all the detestable wickedness of men, could fill whole books, therefore, since nearly the whole world is filled with ills, misery, vices, wickedness, deceit, injustice, theft, larceny, cruelty, tyranny, unruliness, and confusion, this is a sure and clear proof that there is no being who is infinitely good and infinitely wise, who is capable of preventing these evils, or of wisdom, capable of bringing a suitable remedy to it, and consequently, that there is no omnipotent being who is infinitely good and infinitely wise.
This is what a judicious author of the last century said on this subject, for, although he was a Christ-cultist, he couldn’t help but recognize and feel the force of this argument that I’ve put forward. “A certain inequality in conditions, which entails order and subordination,” he says, “is the work of God; or presupposes a divine law, but when excessively disproportionate, as we find it among men, is their own work, or the law of the strongest[750]”. He declares his thought even more clearly in the same place, as I’ve already pointed out. “Place,” he says, “authority, the pleasures, and idleness on one side, with dependency, care, and misery on the other: either these things,” he says, “are displaced by the malice of men, or God is not God. This author acknowledged, then, that everything should be in proper order and subordination under the guid
ance and direction of God, i.e., an infinitely perfect being, it’s His workmanship, as he says, or rather it would be His workmanship to do good, to regulate well, and to properly guide all things. So far he has a point, since he assumes an infinitely perfect being, but how can he them say that so great a disproportion as is found among men, is their work and law of the strongest, since such a wide discrepancy would only be this law of the strongest, if its hypothesis of the existence of an infinitely perfect being were true? For how could an omnipotent being, who is supposed to be infinitely good and infinitely wise allow such an immense and unjust disparity to subsist between men? How could it allow the law of the strongest to be established, against all reason and equity, and even against all its good intentions and all its goodwill? Could the workmanship of men, who are weak and mortal, and who can do nothing of themselves, as our Christ-cultists say, overpower the work of an all-powerful God? This is not at all credible, it’s completely repugnant to the goodness and wisdom of a being who is supposed to be all-powerful and infinitely perfect. This is also why it is explicitly stated in the so-called divine Proverbs of our Christ-cultist that there is no wisdom, no prudence, no counsel, and consequently also no force or power that can prevail against the aims or will of God. Non est[751], it says, sapientia, non est prudentia, non est consilium contra Dominum, and the reason for this is that the very goodness and wisdom of God, who would have made and regulated all things well, would also have prevented them from being displaced by human malice, and would even have prevented any malice at all to exist among men.
This is also how one of their supposed prophets makes his God speak: “Know,” he says, “that I am God and that there is none other than me, my plans will remain firm, and my intentions will be carried out[752]. Ego sum Deus et non est ultra nec est similis mei... Consilium meum stabit et omnis voluntas mea fiet. However, we must necessarily acknowledge that nothing could resist the plans or the will of an all-powerful being, and that nothing could disturb or upset an order that was established by a divine and omnipotent Providence. Since, then, it’s so universally plain that there is an upsetting of good order, a reversal of justice and equity, a general inundation of vices and misery, which miserably afflict most of mankind, and often even the most righteous and innocent rather than the guilty and the wicked; this is a certain and assured proof that there is no omnipotent being, and that there is no infinite goodness or wisdom which can prevent all these evils and securely establish justice and good order everywhere, as would only be fitting for an infinite goodness and wisdom to do. Thus, the sight of so many ills, so many vices, so much misery, and so much wickedness which hold universal sway, clearly show us that there is no God. This is what the author whom I just mentioned declares quite explicitly, in the words I’ve just shared. “Place,” he said, “the authority, the pleasures, and idleness on one side, and dependence and misery on another, either these things,” he says, “are displaced by human malice, or God is not God.” So, even in the thought and views of this writer, who is certainly one of the most judicious among the God-cultists, there is no choice but to acknowledge, either that the things of the world, as they now are, were displaced by human malice, as he says, or that God isn’t God.
To say that things have been displaced by human malice, one must assume that they would could have been organized better, and been placed in a more perfect state than they have been, which might be rather hard to prove, since this seems unlikely: but it’s not that I want to absolutely deny that things in the world could ever have been in a better order, at least with respect to human morals and government, which could indeed have been better in past ages, and there is no doubt but that they would still now be in a better order and a better state if men were truly wise, i.e., if they acted in all things by the true lights of reason and according to the rules of natural justice and equity. But, with respect to the weaknesses and infirmities of nature, with respect to the diseases, suffering, unfortunate accidents, and especially with respect to death, which ends the life and ends all suffering, as well as all pleasure, there is no reason to think that things ever were in an order, or in a state that was far more perfect than the way we now see them; men have always been inclined to evil, they have always been subject to death, as they are now subject to it, and although it’s said that there were once men who lived several hundred years, none of them have been seen up to the present, they have met their end by dying, as all men still do: thus, whether the things of the world were once in a better order and in a better state, whether they have ever been, by intention is not to deny that they can truly have been in a better disposition; but I only mean that if human things had been established in a better order and placed in a state of perfection by the almighty power, by the goodness and wisdom of an infinitely perfect being, they would always have persisted and remained firm in this order and this state of perfection, in which the Supreme Being would have wished to place them, and they could never have been displaced by human malice, and that not only because nothing could ever overcome the plans and will of an omnipotent God, but also because there would never have been malice among men. For how could malice itself have managed to come or sneak into human society, contrary to the will of an omnipotent God? That could never happen, unless you also say that human malice can overcome the force and powers of the omnipotent will of a God, which would be absurd to say.
Since then, it’s clearly evident that human affairs are in a very bad situation, and in very poor condition and that, according the words of the author I quoted, this misalignment of the world’s things proves that they were displaced by human malice, in the hypothesis of an infinitely perfect being, who would have placed them initially in a better order and a better state, than they now enjoy, it’s right to conclude that this infinitely perfect being absolutely does not exist, and consequently that that which is called God, is not God; so that if the author I quoted was right when he said that these things were displaced by human malice or that God was not God, he surely might have said, even more aptly, that if God were God, then things would never have been displaced by human malice, because the same power and the same goodness and the same wisdom which put them into such a fine order and such a perfect state, could have been provident enough to keep them from ever being displaced by human malice: whether, then, one says that these things were displaced by human malice, or that they never were in a better state, or better organized than they are, it hardly affects the conclusion that we should presently draw, for all one needs to do is observe the sad, pitiful, unjust, wicked, detestable, and unhappy state they’re in, to conclude that they were never made or ever governed and guided by a being who is infinitely perfect, for it’s in no way credible or even possible that an infinitely perfect being would have wished to do something so badly, as to intentionally let any harm, any malice, any wickedness, or any disorder slip in among his creatures.
Who would you say, my dear God-cultists and Christ-cultists, what would you say, for example, about a father who, if he could, without hardship or discomfort, regulate and govern his whole family very well, and who, easily able to give all his children good inclinations and all sorts of great perfections, would nevertheless leave it all to chance and let all his children, beautiful or ugly, as He would call them, healthy or sick, insane or wise, and let them do good or evil, and even also let them do evil rather than good? What would you say about such a father? Would you say that he was a perfectly good father? If you wanted to say this, I’m sure that you wouldn’t think of it? What would you say of a shepherd or a herdsman, who, having a herd to watch and guide, casually left it to wander into all sorts of pasturage, good or bad, carelessly let them be infected and corrupted by scabies, and who, with all that, would also miserably let them be disperse and torn by the rage of rabid dogs and wolves? Would you call him a perfectly good shepherd? By no means. You would say that he was a terrible shepherd, deserving of punishment. What would you say of a judge who, instead of faithfully dispensing justice fai
rly to everyone, instead favored injustice and crime, and also indiscriminately punished the good along with the wicked, and who would even come to terms with thieves and the wicked; would you say that such a judge would be perfectly just? By no means. You would say, rather, that he was the most unjust in the world and that he deserved to be severely judged and punished. Finally, what would you say about a ruler of a city or province, even a sovereign Prince, who had States under his rule, if, instead of establishing or having good regulations and good laws observed to keep his peoples in peace and the abundance of all good, he left them to quarrel, persecute, ruin, render desolate and miserably destroy each other by continual division and war, and if it were also this Prince himself who stoked and fomented these fatal divisions and cruel wars among his peoples, would you say that this Prince was a perfectly good one? Not at all. You would say that he deserves to be degraded and stripped of all authority, all honor, all dignity, and all command, and you would be right to say so, since such conduct would be completely unworthy of the goodness, wisdom, and majesty of a Prince; and any Prince who is not a good Prince does not deserve to be one.