Voltaire’s A Treatise on Tolerance: Lessons on Civility from the French Enlightenment
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
In 1763, Voltaire published A Treatise on Tolerance in reaction to the execution of Jean Calas, a Protestant merchant who was accused (falsely) of murdering his adult son to prevent his conversion to Catholicism. A Treatise on Tolerance briefly summarizes this specific case, but the majority of the book presents a powerful and engaging plea and rationale for religious tolerance.
Though the nature and consequences of intolerance in Voltaire’s day differed from specific contemporary manifestations, his treatment of the topic has much to offer in a modern context. Voltaire could very well be describing our current toxic and divided political culture when he asserts that “of all superstitions, that of hating our neighbor on account of his opinion is surely the most dangerous!” (Voltaire, 2009, p. 92). Elsewhere, in a chapter addressed directly to the Deity, Voltaire offers this prayer:
May the trifling differences in the garments that cover our frail bodies, in the mode of expressing our insignificant thoughts, in our ridiculous customs and our imperfect laws, in our idle opinions and in our several conditions and situations, that appear so disproportionate in our eyes, and all are equal in Thine; in a word, may the slight variations that are found among the atoms called men not be made use by us as signals of mutual hatred and persecution! (p. 100)
One can easily imagine this prayer offered up today in response to the current political, social, and religious environment in the United States. Voltaire also draws upon a range of global and historical examples – including Greek, Roman, and Chinese philosophers – to support his case for universal tolerance and again, these connections still ring true in a contemporary context. In the English classroom, these connections could be explored on their own terms and also as they are relevant to contemporary discussions of civility and tolerance.
A Treatise on Tolerance was published four years after Voltaire’s most famous work, Candide (Voltaire, 1981). The latter work also includes various treatments and critiques of intolerance in the satirical narrative of Candide’s fictional adventures and misfortunes.
The cultural and social milieu in which Voltaire produced his writings on tolerance provides a glimpse at what can result when intolerance and ideological repression are allowed to overwhelm and sublimate the mores of a decent society. In the United States of America in 2018, cultural and constitutional principles still protect us from the worst consequences of institutional intolerance. Nevertheless, the impulses remain widespread in our society and could, if not checked, continue to gain in strength and respectability. In this sense, A Treatise on Tolerance can serve as a timely warning based upon lived experiences in 18th Century France. Further, Voltaire’s convincing rationale for social and religious toleration represents a model for teachers who value civility and wish to encourage tolerance in their classrooms and in the lives of their students.
Voltaire’s central theses rest upon the Enlightenment values of reason and humanism. In his specific account of the Calas travesty, Voltaire critiques rural (intolerant) justice with this contrast: “In Paris reason always triumph over enthusiasm, however great, whereas in the more distant provinces of the kingdom, enthusiasm almost always triumphs over reason” (p. 9). A recent book by cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker updates this theme of enthusiasm-over-reason and Pinker tends also to be optimistic that the persistent Enlightenment values of reason and rationality will triumph in the end.
Voltaire’s first practical rationale for tolerance is simple common sense buttressed by historical anecdotes. [would facilitate integration of literature and history] With a voice that echoes in contemporary political and legal debates, Voltaire insists that tolerance is not dangerous to society nor does it represent a threat to the peace or well-being of those who practice toleration of their fellows. Following a presentation of numerous historical instances of successful tolerance – including from England, Poland, China, Japan, Turkey (Ottoman Empire), and the United States – Voltaire concludes that “toleration has never yet excited civil wars, whereas its opposite has filled the earth was a slaughter and desolation” (p. 23). A contemporary parallel becomes apparent here. In the U.S.A., we endure the constant bombardment of false assertions in defense in intolerance. From the President on down, we have heard and read of the dire hazards will surely ensue if we persist in defending America’s long tradition of toleration and acceptance of differences, whether cultural, ethnic, or religious. The fact-checking that routinely falsifies these spurious claims is analogous to Voltaire’s fact-checking of the historical record. The argument that intolerance is somehow necessary (or worse, patriotic or worst, righteous) was as vacuous in Voltaire’s day as it is in ours.
Voltaire extends his argument with the assertion – again with great contemporary relevance – that greater diversity actually leads to less danger from any particular group, as “they become weaker in proportion as they are more numerous” (p. 24). On this basis, it is again absurd to base a defense of intolerance on the supposed dangers of diversity to safety and society. In the spirit of the Enlightenment, Voltaire then appeals to reason (including natural law) as a rationale for tolerance:
The most certain means to lessen the number of mad of both sorts, if any still remain, is to leave them entirely to the care of reason, which will infallibly enlighten the understanding in the long run, though she may be slow in her operations. Reason goes mildly to work, she persuades with humanity, she inspires mutual indulgence and forbearance, she stifles the voice of discord, establishes the rule of virtue and sobriety, and disposes those to pay a ready obedience to the laws who might start from the hand of power when exerted to enforce them. (p. 25)
Voltaire devotes several chapters to an extended discussion of the historical record regarding the persecution of Christians by – for the most part – the Roman authorities. The basic thesis of Voltaire is that these persecutions can in most or all cases be attributed to civil disturbances and seditious acts by Christians and not to intolerance of their religious beliefs per se. Voltaire’s argument is then turned upon the Christians themselves who committed hideous acts against those deemed to be heretics for not acquiescing to whatever tenets were in favor at a particular moment in the Church’s development.
There are several ways that Voltaire’s assertions regarding religious persecution are analogous to contemporary versions of intolerance, particularly in the United States. For one thing, intolerance is, in most cases, born of fear. In the case of modern Christianity (especially as espoused be the so-called evangelicals of our day), it is often claimed that tolerance is dangerous to faith itself. Therefore, out of fear of spiritual annihilation, it becomes necessary to persist in the most spurious and indefensible beliefs and commitments. This foundation of fear then leads to the most absurd claims and calls to action in the name of preserving the faith. For example, in our time, there is a fear that allowing (or worse, embracing) gay marriage will topple the very edifice of marriage sanctity and lead to all manner of horrific outcomes for society at large. Or, there is the fear that toleration of Islam will, by necessity and quite automatically, result in the forced imposition of Sharia Law in unsuspecting communities across the land. In a manner that further parallels Voltaire’s accounts, these same Christians assert the fiction that it is they themselves who are the persecuted ones. Just as Voltaire convincingly – from the historical record – attributes most so-called persecution to actions of government against civil disruption and in civility, so in our time do zealots claim martyrdom when their crimes against the social contract are exposed and met with just consequences. For example, when merchants refuse to afford equal access (as our Constitution demands) to those deemed unworthy or illegitimate (based on sexual preference, religious belief, political stance, or racial/ethnic identity), the law is rightfully applied against such transgressions. This is not religious persecution by the state; rather it is the state acting lawfully against persecution and discrimination by the so-called Christians themselves. It is remarkable that, 250 years after Voltaire recounted these examples from his own and from much earlier eras, we are still able to readily identify contemporary examples of the same brand of illegitimate and unreasonable zealots.
In a long paragraph on p. 50, Voltaire enumerates a long list of relatively inconsequential disputes that are feared by Christians to necessarily lead to the dire conclusion that “therefore there is no God.” Intolerance is, in these cases, necessary to the very survival of God … how arrogant!
Chapter 20 of A Treatise on Tolerance could easily be directed to the science-deniers of our day, those whose insecurity of belief is so incapacitating that they would rather scoff at the easily demonstrable than accept the obvious and observable truth. Superstition, in Voltaire’s view, is unnecessary when belief is secure and faith rests on a legitimate footing. “When once men have embraced a pure and holy religion, superstition then becomes not only needless but very hurtful. Those who God has been pleased to nourish with bread ought not to be fed upon acorns” (p. 89). And of those who deny science, Voltaire says, “if they should have recourse to compulsion and persecution to establish their insolent ignorance, would not mad men and butchers be deemed a proper appellation?” (p. 91). “Of all superstitions, that of hatingour neighbor on account of his opinion is surely the most dangerous!” (p. 92).
Religion is instituted to make us happy in this life and the next. But what is required to make us happy in the life to come? To be just. And in this? To be merciful and forbearing. It would be the height of madness to pretend to bring all mankind to think exactly in the same manner in regard to metaphysics. We might, with much greater case, subject the whole universe by force of arms than subject the minds of all the inhabitants of a single village.(p. 93)
Returning to a contemporary consideration of Enlightenment values, Steven Pinker (2018) asserts that irrationality is attributable less to ignorance and more to allegiance to particular political, religious, or cultural ideologies.
We all identify with particular tribes or subcultures, each of which embraces a creed on what makes for a good life and how society should run its affairs. A given belief, depending on how it is framed and who endorses it, can become a touchstone, password, motto, shibboleth, sacred value, or oath of allegiance to one of these tribes. (p. 357)
To conclude on an upbeat note, Pinker (2018) is optimistic that the Tragedy of the Belief Commons can be averted with properly applied pedagogy in critical thinking along with the rules of discourse and de-biasing. He quotes Mercier and Sperber as follows:
Contrary to common bleak assessments of human reasoning abilities, people are quite capable of reasoning in an unbiased manner, at least when they are evaluating arguments rather than producing them, and when they are after the truth rather than trying to win a debate.
Finally, one more word from God himself, as channeled by Voltaire:
I have formed you all weak and ignorant, to vegetate a few moments on that earth which afterwards you are to fatten with your carcasses. Let your weakness then teach you to succor each other, and as you are ignorant, bear with and endeavor mutually to instruct each other. I have given you hands to cultivate the earth, and a fine glimmering of reason to conduct yourselves by, and I have planted in your hearts a spirit of compassion, that you may assist each other under the burden of life. Do not smother that small spark, nor suffer for it to be corrupted, for know it is a divine origin; neither substitute the wretched debates of the schools in the place of the voice of nature. (p. 111)
References
Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and science. Chicago: Viking.
Voltaire [Francois-Marie Arouet]. (1981). Candide. NY: Bantam.
Voltaire [Francois-Marie Arouet]. (2009). Treatise on tolerance and other writings. NY: Barnes and Noble.
Postscript: Some random final thoughts …
Quotes relevant to religious intolerance and false victimhood:
If the Evangelists had resembled our modern writers, what an immense field was there for disputation between them. … [However, despite the numerous instances of disagreement recounted in Scripture], they still continued in brotherly love, peace, and charity with one another. What more noble lesson can we have of indulgence in our disputes, and of humility in regard to those things which we do not understand? (p. 54)
All those false miracles by which you shake the credit due to real ones, the numberless absurd legends with which you clog the truth of the Gospel, serve only to extinguish the pure flame of religion in our hearts. … Such are undeniably the consequences of pious frauds and superstitious fopperies. [Based upon] the irreconcilable animosities excited by differences in opinions, and the numberless evils occasioned by false zeal, I cannot believe that men have for a long time had their hell in this world. (pp. 49-50)
From Voltaire’s expansive historical overview, one cannot help but recognize how much we – in the 21st Century – suffer from a sort of uniqueness derangement syndrome. We think our time is so new, so different, so set apart from everything that has gone before. The intolerant use this as a justification for their phobias and conspiracy theories. But this is, once again, empty arrogance at best and cruel manipulation at worst. With some adjustment of the specific instances and rationales for intolerance, Voltaire’s critique of his time could be transported directly into our own. How much we have failed to learn over the past hundreds of years! How we are still fooled and how much we are willing to accept out of pure fear and blind insecurity!
In Chapter 12 of A Treatise on Tolerance, Voltaire presents a detailed accounting of toleration among the Jews and by God throughout the Old Testament. He concludes the chapter thusly: “The Holy Scripture then teaches us that God not only tolerated every other religion, but also extended his fatherly care to them all. And shall we, after this, dare to be persecutors?” This admonition is followed, in Chapters 16, 17, and 19 with Candide-like accounts of the absurdity and unreasonableness of persecution and intolerance for religious motives.
As insects who inhabit this planet, how can we presume to know the ways of God, to pass judgment based upon words and nuance, to presume to declare our fellow humans to be condemned to an eternal punishment. Voltaire’s answer is, of course, that we cannot presume any of this if we heed the laws of nature and specifically the chief law among them, that of reason and reasonable discernment. In Chapter 23,Voltaire addresses these opinions directly to the Deity (pp. 100-101) and in Chapter 25 allows nature to speak for herself:
I have formed you all weak and ignorant, to vegetate a few moments on that earth which afterwards you are to fatten with your carcasses. Let your weakness then teach you to succor each other, and as you are ignorant, bear with and endeavor mutually to instruct each other. I have given you hands to cultivate the earth, and a find glimmering of reason to conduct yourselves by, and I have planted in your hearts a spirit of compassion, that you may assist each other under the burden of life. Do not smother that small spark, nor suffer for it to be corrupted, for know it is a divine origin; neither substitute the wretched debates of the schools in the place of the voice of nature. (p. 111)