"Voltaire was not an atheist; he was a deist.
Voltaire believed that God is the Source of all life and substance.
He was convinced of the existence of God for two reasons:
First, he thought that the world could not be explained without
God, that is, without a "First Cause." However, Voltaire thought that God the Creator cannot be reached by man, nor can God be conceived by our knowledge. But by our very reasoning we are forced to admit God's existence, and only ignorance could attempt to define Him.
Second, without God there is no foundation of morality, and thus God is the basis of human society.
It was Voltaire who coined the cynical phrase, "If God did not exist, we would have to invent Him."
Voltaire's judgments are often erroneous, particularly his pert remarks on Isaac Newton's Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.
Yet he cannot be considered an atheist.
One of his most outspoken statements against atheism is in his letter to the Marquis of Villevieille: "My dear Marquis, there is nothing good in Atheism. . . . This system is evil both in the physical realm as well as in that of morality... ."
Rousseau was also a deist, but with a few nuances varying from Voltaire's deism.
Rousseau believed that God could be reached by the heart rather
than by reasoning.
Religion, to Rousseau, was an individual matter and a powerful means to moral development.
While Voltaire was arrogantly hostile to the church (not only to the Roman Catholic Church), Rousseau remained somewhat respectful toward the church as an institution.
The main difference, however, between the ideas of the two men concerning their concept of the world was that Voltaire was basically pessimistic, while Rousseau was optimistic.
The disaster of Lisbon led Voltaire to examine the problem of evil and suffering in relationship to an overruling Providence. This
question had concerned him before 1755. His letters indicate that many times he pondered on it in relationship to previous earthquakes.
This problem, which of course is age old, was that while there is an overruling Providence, it seemed to him that God's rulership was not for man's best good. He expressed this idea in two lines of the poem on the Lisbon earthquake:
Rousseau considered Voltaire's poem on the Lisbon earthquake not only a personal attack on him, but a basic lack of understanding and a distortion of God's preponderant action. Rousseau's letter to Voltaire in answer to his poem is very lengthy.
Rousseau's argumentation in defense of the immanent action of God was that the earthquake is not to be primarily imputed to God, but to man.
Moreover, if the world had listened to him—to Rousseau—if men had abandoned city life and returned to nature rather than congregating in Lisbon, the result would have been different. "Admit," wrote Rousseau, "that it was not nature's way to crowd together 20,000 houses with 6 or 7 stories each, and if all the inhabitants of this large city had been dispersed more equally, the damage would have been much less, maybe nil." Thus Rousseau ...stating that evil is the simple and natural result of the necessary limitation of every created thing.
The best of Rousseau's answer may be found in his writing to Voltaire:
I do not see that one can find the source of moral evil elsewhere than in man himself, because man is morally free.... As for our physical ills, ... they are inevitable in a system where man is involved.
The debate between the two celebrated writers that came to a head at the time of the Lisbon earthquake may be only of a philosophical nature, but it indicates vividly to what extent that catastrophe affected the thinking of mankind.
Had these men believed the Word of God and read it with keen understanding and spiritual insight, they would have understood the words of the Divine Master: "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Luke 24:25."
Daniel Walther/Ministry1956
Fitting Lisbon into Prophecy:
"....linked this extraordinary event with the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and subsequent celestial phenomena of the sun and
moon as a fulfillment of Christ’s prediction that as the time of His return approaches, “the stars will fall from the sky” (Matt. 24:29). They have also seen it as fulfilling the scene John described at the opening of the sixth seal: “And the stars in the sky fell to earth, as late figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind” (Rev. 6:13). After quoting these verses, Ellen White wrote: “This prophecy received a striking and impressive fulfillment in the great meteoric shower of November 13, 1833.”
There is also the specific sequence of the signs Jesus gave and that Revelation repeated: (1) tribulation ending; (2) great earthquake; (3) sun darkened; (4) moon to blood; (5) stars falling.
Voltaire believed that God is the Source of all life and substance.
He was convinced of the existence of God for two reasons:
First, he thought that the world could not be explained without
Second, without God there is no foundation of morality, and thus God is the basis of human society.
It was Voltaire who coined the cynical phrase, "If God did not exist, we would have to invent Him."
Voltaire's judgments are often erroneous, particularly his pert remarks on Isaac Newton's Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John.
Yet he cannot be considered an atheist.
One of his most outspoken statements against atheism is in his letter to the Marquis of Villevieille: "My dear Marquis, there is nothing good in Atheism. . . . This system is evil both in the physical realm as well as in that of morality... ."
Rousseau was also a deist, but with a few nuances varying from Voltaire's deism.
Rousseau's was sentimental,
while Voltaire's was rationalistic.
Religion, to Rousseau, was an individual matter and a powerful means to moral development.
While Voltaire was arrogantly hostile to the church (not only to the Roman Catholic Church), Rousseau remained somewhat respectful toward the church as an institution.
The main difference, however, between the ideas of the two men concerning their concept of the world was that Voltaire was basically pessimistic, while Rousseau was optimistic.
The disaster of Lisbon led Voltaire to examine the problem of evil and suffering in relationship to an overruling Providence. This
This problem, which of course is age old, was that while there is an overruling Providence, it seemed to him that God's rulership was not for man's best good. He expressed this idea in two lines of the poem on the Lisbon earthquake:
All will be well one day, that is our hope.
All is well today, that is the illusion.
"Lisbon is destroyed, while they dance in Paris." Who will find the cause of this evil? God, who is love and kindness, the Author of all things—can He be considered also the author of this catastrophe?Rousseau considered Voltaire's poem on the Lisbon earthquake not only a personal attack on him, but a basic lack of understanding and a distortion of God's preponderant action. Rousseau's letter to Voltaire in answer to his poem is very lengthy.
Rousseau's argumentation in defense of the immanent action of God was that the earthquake is not to be primarily imputed to God, but to man.
Moreover, if the world had listened to him—to Rousseau—if men had abandoned city life and returned to nature rather than congregating in Lisbon, the result would have been different. "Admit," wrote Rousseau, "that it was not nature's way to crowd together 20,000 houses with 6 or 7 stories each, and if all the inhabitants of this large city had been dispersed more equally, the damage would have been much less, maybe nil." Thus Rousseau ...stating that evil is the simple and natural result of the necessary limitation of every created thing.
The best of Rousseau's answer may be found in his writing to Voltaire:
I do not see that one can find the source of moral evil elsewhere than in man himself, because man is morally free.... As for our physical ills, ... they are inevitable in a system where man is involved.
The debate between the two celebrated writers that came to a head at the time of the Lisbon earthquake may be only of a philosophical nature, but it indicates vividly to what extent that catastrophe affected the thinking of mankind.
Had these men believed the Word of God and read it with keen understanding and spiritual insight, they would have understood the words of the Divine Master: "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Luke 24:25."
Daniel Walther/Ministry1956
Fitting Lisbon into Prophecy:
"....linked this extraordinary event with the 1755 Lisbon earthquake and subsequent celestial phenomena of the sun and
There is also the specific sequence of the signs Jesus gave and that Revelation repeated: (1) tribulation ending; (2) great earthquake; (3) sun darkened; (4) moon to blood; (5) stars falling.
Although Jesus echoes several Old Testament prophecies that speak of cosmic signs involving the sun, moon, or stars, the sequence He presents is unique when He places the falling of the stars last in the series.
The same sequence (sun, moon, then stars) appears consistently in each of the Synoptic Gospels, and the book of Revelation maintains the same order.
No other meteoric display matches in timing and sequence with the events of the Lisbon earthquake (1755), followed by the dark day (1780).
Referring to these signs, William Shea writes: “Geography, sequence, and timing make this series of events unique and unmatched by any earthquakes or meteor showers elsewhere or at other times.”
While we do not know how much longer time will last, the prophetic periods and signs confirm that truly we are in the end-times. With full confidence, we can affirm with Paul, “Our salvation is nearer now than when we first believed” (Romans 13:11)."
TimPoirier /AdventistReview
