Religion in a New Age: Locke and Hobbes in Contrast - Essay Example

Religion in a New Age: Locke and Hobbes in Contrast The major philosophers of the Enlightenment were both united and at odds in their views regarding religious belief. To a man they favored dispensing with the central role that it had played in European society since the collapse of the Roman Empire. They differed in what alternative role they thought it should take, however. They also disagreed in their views of what value, if any, it held for the new world that was emerging. This paper will summarize, compare, and contrast the views of both John Locke and Thomas Hobbes regarding spiritual beliefs. It will consider what each writer considered the chief virtue of religious faith and what role it should in society. This analysis will develop and support the thesis stated in the previous paragraph. Hobbes was, in today’s parlance, an apologist for totalitarianism. He saw the central issue facing human welfare as the threat individual persons pose to the safety and well-being of their fellows. This sprang from his view of human nature, which he perceived as innately selfish, brutish, and deaf to all appeals except the one to force. As he writes in chapter twenty-two of The Leviathan: For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all.  For Hobbes, there was but one way to guard against the human tendency to prey on others. An all-powerful sovereign must take hold of the reins of power and reserve to himself the use of force, with one goal in mind: the preservation of the public peace. To ensure the absolute control of this ruler, he must not only dictate what men may do but also what they must believe. As Hobbes writes in chapter twenty-three of The Leviathan: Sixthly, it is annexed to the sovereignty to be judge of what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing to peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how far, and what men are to be trusted withal in speaking to multitudes of people; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they be published. For the actions of men proceed from their opinions, and in the well governing of opinions consists the well governing of men's actions in order to their peace and concord. No freedom of speech or press, then; the central government has not only the right but the obligation to approve or to censor as it believes is best for the purpose of keeping the populace in line. After all, bad opinions lead to bad deeds. Individuals simply cannot be trusted. For Hobbes, the essential challenge regarding religion was to find a way to harmonize it with his insistence upon an all-powerful leader. Whatever his personal opinions on the claims of the Church, he could not openly challenge them without facing the charge of heresy or, even worse, atheism. Nonetheless, the Church could not be allowed power over individuals. That would lead to a potential challenger to the sovereign, for what if Caesar declares one way is just and Christ another? In The Leviathan Hobbes tries to bypass this threat to his system by engaging in a delicate dance, in which he seeks a means to bring religion under the authority of the State. First he establishes that his views are consistent with Reason. He then exalts Reason as a means by which the will of God may be discerned. As he says in chapter forty-three: Nevertheless, we are not to renounce our senses and experience, nor that which is the undoubted word of God, our natural reason. For they are the talents which he hath put into our hands to negotiate, till the coming again of our blessed Savior; and therefore not to be folded up in the napkin of an implicit faith, but employed in the purchase of justice, peace, and true religion. The logic here is syllogistic in nature: (1.) Reason is a means by which God's will may be discerned; (2.) Reason shows that submission to an all powerful sovereign is the surest means of securing safety and peace; thus (3.) It is God's will that this sovereign should have our complete and undivided obedience, so that we may all enjoy the security that the Lord intends for us. This is a clever way of circumventing the question of whether Christians should follow the State's demands when they contradict Church teaching. Hobbes posits that such a dilemma could never arise. This resolves the possibility of said conflicts. It also reduces religion to the role of supporting the secular government by urging all good Christians to obey its dictates. This is its greatest quality and primary task. To say that Locke's view of government differs from that of Hobbes would be a gross understatement. Hobbes feared the threat posed by free individuals, and sought solace in the idea of an all-controlling sovereign. Locke's terror was of the specter of an omnipotent State, and found comfort in entrusting ultimate power to the people. He states this plainly in the following text from The Second Treatise of Government: In a constituted common-wealth, standing upon its own basis, and acting according to its own nature, that is, acting for the preservation of the community, there can be but one supreme, which is the legislative, to which all the rest are and must be subordinate, yet the legislative being only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, there remains still in the people a supreme power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them. For Locke, centralized power exists for the maintenance of social order and protection of property and personal rights. In this he agrees with Hobbes. Unlike him, he maintains that the people must not cede all authority to the government; rather they must reserve to themselves ultimate power, including the option to alter or to abolish the State should it prove to be tyrannical or inept. This is all well and good when writing about secular rulers. But, like Hobbes, Locke had to deal with the issue of ecclesiastical authority with discretion and tact. He could not deny the truth of the Christian religion without finding himself repudiated, renounced, and possibly burned at the stake. The conundrum he faced was resolved by removing religion from matters of state altogether, reassigning it to a private place of dominion over the individual conscience. He sees this as religion’s chief role. As he writes in An Essay Concerning Toleration: The business of true religion is quite another thing. It is not instituted in order to the erecting of an external pomp, nor to the obtaining of ecclesiastical dominion, nor to the exercising compulsive force, but to the regulating of men’s lives, according to the rules of virtue and piety. Whosoever will list himself under the banner of Christ, must, in the first place and above all things, make war upon his own lusts and vices. Locke intends for religion to have no hand in exercising the rule of law, nor in acting as a cheerleader for the government, as Hobbes would have. He takes Jesus’ statement that “my kingdom is not of this world” in John 18:36 as his rallying cry, and assigns to spirituality the singular role of policing one’s personal moral character. Two philosophers, two views of secular government, one view of the place of religion in society: this summarizes both Locke and Hobbes. Each sought in different ways to divorce Church and State. They differed only in the manner in which they would achieve this goal. Their ideas planted the seed for the separation of religion and statesmanship that differentiates modernity from the Church-dominated society that preceded it. What was once heresy is now the accepted wisdom. We truly live in a new world. Works Cited Hobbes, Thomas. The Leviathan. Oregon State University. Web. July 20, 2011. Locke, John. A Letter Concerning Toleration. Web. July 20, 2011. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Web. July 20, 2011. Read More