Poor enemy of the supreme essence

François-Marie Arouet was a brilliant man. The very essence of the French Enlightenment, he was a well-regarded philosopher and oft-quoted writer, although you've likely never heard that name.

Arouet, was quite complex in his beliefs. Born in Paris, November 21, 1764, he was a man of irrepressible wit, he was virulently anti-slavery, and a staunch supporter of civil liberties and free-trade. Yet, he was distrustful of democracy as he believed the average man was too stupid to rule himself. In fact he viewed democracy as "propagating the idiocy of the masses." He also was scornful of the Jews, saying among other things that they were "an ignorant and barbarous people."

The man was, by no means an atheist - quite the opposite . . . He was a devout believer in a supreme being and dismissed atheists as stupid and dangerous. Contrarily, he was an outspoken opponent of Religion and often faced the ire of the Catholic church:

Criticize the servant, but respect the master.

God should not suffer for the stupidity of the priest:
Let us recognize this God, although he is poorly served.

The excerpt above is taken from a brief work entitled "Epistle to the author of the book The Three Impostors", written in 1768, and directed at the anonymous author of the work of that name.

According to Mr. Arouet, The Three Impostors was a horrendously misguided and harmful text that denied the existence of a supreme divinity. He declared it a "very dangerous work, full of coarse atheism, without wit and devoid of philosophy."

This was apparently a "dangerous work" because it dared to question the notion of a supreme being.

Arouet espoused a strong belief that a supreme being was a necessity for society because those who might chance punishment on earth in committal of a crime, might, on further review - decide against the commission of that very crime were an eternity of punishment to face the transgressor.

Thus, in his response Arouet expounds the idea that the existence of God necessarily helps to establish and enforce a natural social order. To that point, in the most famous line of Mr. Arouet's work, the following oft-quoted, but apparently misunderstood line appears:

If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.

You may recognize that as a quote not by Arouet, but instead by Voltaire . . . and you would be correct - François-Marie Arouet and Voltaire are one and the same.

What Voltaire was clearly trying to say here is that even if there were no God, man would invent the concept of a supreme being - because man is a weak-willed animal and needs an invisible father-figure to mete out reward and punishment for bad behaviour.

Voltaire truly believed that without the threat of eternal punishment or promise of eternal reward, man was simply incapable of moral decisions based on what is right. To Voltaire, a supreme being and eternity were an absolute necessity for the concept of the "Social Contract" to work correctly.

This otherwise brilliant philosopher who, despite his dismissal of the dogma of organized religion, accepted, unquestionably, it's most basic tenets.

The irony is of course, that since there is no god, man DID in fact, invent a supreme being.

So despite his strong deist views, Voltaire is a favourite of the Atheist - and admittedy, I myself have been known to quote Voltaire liberally. To wit:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Atheists love this particularly quote and gleefully use it as an example of the religious establishment's attempts to use faith in a higher power (absurdity) to elicit such religiously-based atrocities as, for example, the Crusades.

And indeed as stated earlier, while a "believer," Voltaire was certainly no proponent of organized religion - so it is obvious that Voltaire meant this is in a broader definition . . . that ANYONE who can get you to believe something - religiously; politically; socially, economically, philosophically - and can get you to blindly accept it without question - can further manipulate you for their own ends based simply on your misguided acceptance of the belief in question.

A brief digression: Voltaire is also credited with the phrase "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This declaration is often embraced by self-proclaimed proponents of the First Amendment.

This particular piece of wisdom is, in practice, easier to regurgitate than to support - and is often dismissed when defense is required for politically incorrect actions or words.

So I find it even more strange that Voltaire - the enlightened man's model of rational thought; who so easily dismissed organized religion; and propounded to choose death over censorship - accepted the existence of a single all-powerful entity and chose to reprimand a specific work as "dangerous".

I often give some latitude to great thinkers and prefer to examine them, their thoughts and their beliefs, in the context of the time in which there were living. But those of us whose only religion is that of rational thought tend to idolize Voltaire. And as such I hold him to a higher standard.

Life in't fair.