Enlightenment stands before us as a philosophical problematic open to multi-dimensional debates, with its definition, content, framework and impact, which cannot be agreed upon. Religion, the dominant theme accompanying the concept of enlightenment, has always been an equally problematic issue. There is an understanding that the Enlightenment is a movement that emerged against religion and traditional understandings, which turned into a belief in which reason was largely disabled, an institution serving political and economic interests, and gaining worldly authority. It can be said that this period, which covers the end of the seventeenth century and the whole of the eighteenth century, was the age of criticism, in which every subject, especially religion, science and art, was ope- ned to discussion and reinterpreted under the guidance of reason. However, according to some approaches, the enlightenment period was a period that aimed to eliminate all religions, including monotheistic religions. In order to defend this thesis, a view that all philosophers of the Enlightenment period were naturalists, positivists, atheists or theists was tried to be dominant. The main subject of this article is to deal with and discuss this approach, which contains many mistakes, paradoxes and contradictions in terms of both historical reality and philosophical consistency, partly within the framework of the three important thinkers of the general enlightenment period and more often the Scottish Enli- ghtenment. The subject has been discussed on the basis of some works of philosophers. In the article, it has been tried to show that the Enlightenment is an absolute anti-religion, and that the common belief that all Enlightenment philosophers were naturalists, atheists or at most deists was wrong.