One of the reasons I began this blog was to build confidence. Another was to become more articulate in expressing the ideas I have, and of my reading of philosophy. While I have been willing, in past posts, to state my own ideas, I haven't gone much further than comfortable responses to books and essays I read as a student. Today, I find myself willing to put down something of my own. This may be as a result of growing confidence. Or, perhaps I am just running out of things to say. Either way, this should be a challenge.
And, in saying that I am stating my own idea, I am already off on the wrong foot. What I am doing today is an attempt to rationally reconstruct someone else's idea. I'd like to think my reading of Locke is novel, but I can't say for sure that it is. I came up with it on my own, but someone else may have already fully developed what I can only suggest as possible. If that is the case, I would very much appreciate knowing so. If someone finds their way to this post, and makes it far enough into that they get a good enough idea of what I am attempting to get at, and knows of some more fully realized and scholarly work on the topic, please let me know. Likewise, if anyone has any reading suggestions for me, please comment on this post.
Though, to be fair (to myself), this isn't just a response. I am attempting to do more than just explain what Locke thought about something. I am attempting to resolve two statements that seem to be in paradox, because I believe that resolution could provide a theoretical framework for dealing with important issues that we face today. Then again, I may be naive and ignorant of how the world really works. If you think so, please comment on that as well.
OK, so, let's get started.
I've already made it clear that I am dealing with Locke. To be more specific, I am comparing comments he made in his essay "The Reasonableness of Christianity" with comments in "A Letter Concerning Toleration." In short, Locke claims in "Reasonableness" that Christianity is entirely rational. That the claims of the Christian religion and of Christian philosophers are able to be supported as true on their own merit, using reason alone. However, these truths were too demanding for philosophers to have arrived at on their own, so revelation was necessary. Yet, in "A Letter," Locke argues that members of other religions should be tolerated in predominately Christian society. His reason for this, the magistrate, or civil authority, even if Christian, is no better at securing the salvation of members of other religious communities than they are. This is an odd claim to make for someone who believes that Christianity is objectively true.
Before I get into parsing the citations, I want to make it clear that I am not attempting to evangelize in this post. I think that understanding Locke can contribute to a more civil world. But that doesn't mean I endorse everything he thought without any qualification.
From "The Reasonableness of Christianity: "...such strains of reasonings the greatest part of mankind have neither leisure to weigh, nor, for want of education and use, skill to judge of. We see how unsuccessful in this, the attempts of philosophers were, before Our Saviour's time. How short their several systems came of the perfection of a true and complete morality, is very visible. And if, since that, the Christian philosophers have much outdone them, yet we may observe, that the first knowledge of the truths they have added are, owing to revelation; though as soon as they are heard and considered, they are found to be agreeable to reason, and such as can by no means be contradicted." (Locke, Reasonableness of Christianity, 241)
Basically, this is just what I have stated already, that Christianity is completely rational. Though, it is worthwhile to point out, that Locke claims that it "can by no means be contradicted." This is a fairly strong statement. Based on it alone, if someone were to ask whether or not Locke believed that civil authority had the right to establish a state religion, that someone would have to concluded that such a right exists. After all, if Locke is correct, and some substantive matter regarding a decision to be made in social life were to come up in court, where there was a clear "Christian" idea, regarding the proper choice, and a "Pagan" idea, for instance, to use an ancient example, whether or not it is acceptable to serve in the military, the judge would likely have to conclude in favor of the Christian. Christian truths are, according to Locke, supported by reason, and cannot be contradicted. He doesn't mean that they are restricted by some institutional authority from being contradicted. He means that they have intellectual authority of their own. They are verifiable.
Yet, Locke also finds it reasonable to say this: "The one only narrow way which leads to heaven is not better known to the magistrate than to private persons, and therefore I cannot safely take him for my guide, who may probably be as ignorant of the way as myself, and who certainly is less concerned for my salvation than I myself am. Amongst so many kings of the Jews, how many of them were there whom any Israelite, thus blindly following, had not fallen into idolatry and thereby into destruction? Yet, nevertheless, you bid me be of good courage and tell me that all is now safe and secure, because the magistrate does not now enjoin the observance of his own decrees in matters of religion, but only the decrees of the Church. Of what Church, I beseech you? of that, certainly, which likes him best." (Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration)
In other words, Christianity is totally rational, but we don't really understand it. At least, not enough to say that we are more sure that Christianity is right and other religious and theological ideas aren't. Locke may be appealing to a hypothetical version of "pure" Christianity in "Reasonableness" but a more practical version here in "A Letter." Or, he may be simply contradicting himself. Or, these comments may not really be connected. But I think there is something more here. I think that Locke had different notions about what we could accept to be true as individuals. What we can accept as private knowledge. And that which we can set as public policy. A common religious response to flawed institutions is to make set them more in line with the "pure" version of the faith. This is theocracy, and their are plenty of theocrats today. Not just radical Muslims either. The debate over gay marriage in the US has revealed plenty of Christian theocrats as well. But Locke does something very different. Even though he likely believes he is right about Christianity, he chooses tolerance over ideology.
What philosophical justification does he have for this? And, what I really want to know, does the difference between what Locke accepts as private knowledge and what he suggests for public policy provide a theoretical distinction for other types of private knowledge and public policy? Does Locke set an epistemic limitation on knowledge in the public sphere?
But before I am able to get to that, there are a couple more things to go over in " A Letter." First, just in case I haven't established well enough that Locke did believe in tolerating other religions, here is this: "Secondly, no private person has any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church or religion. All the rights and franchises that belong to him as a man, or as a denizen, are inviolably to be preserved to him. These are not the business of religion. No violence nor injury is to be offered him, whether he be Christian or Pagan. Nay, we must not content ourselves with the narrow measures of bare justice; charity, bounty, and liberality must be added to it. This the Gospel enjoins, this reason directs, and this that natural fellowship we are born into requires of us. If any man err from the right way, it is his own misfortune, no injury to thee; nor therefore art thou to punish him in the things of this life because thou supposest he will be miserable in that which is to come." (Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration)
This is worth reiterating simply because there is still debate over what Locke really thought about Muslims. It would be necessary, if I were to truly develop this idea, to thoroughly investigate the criticism that claim that Locke did not really extend toleration to Muslims. Especially since, as my last quote from "A Letter" in this post points out, Locke really did exclude atheists from toleration. He just did not think they could be responsible citizens: "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of a toleration. As for other practical opinions, though not absolutely free from all error, if they do not tend to establish domination over others, or civil impunity to the Church in which they are taught, there can be no reason why they should not be tolerated." (Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration) This is important, even though it weakens my argument somewhat, because it shows that Locke does not suspend his private knowledge when he makes policy suggestions. That is what we do today. When private knowledge is in conflict with policy, conservatives tend to reject the policy, and liberals tend to compartmentalize it. Neither of these is a satisfactory response, and perhaps neither is necessary.
To sum up, private knowledge, to Locke, can be constructive. We can affirm the results of reason as facts. But there are limitations on how that knowledge can be used publicly. Policy is more reductive. Locke wants to be careful about what we can really know when it has affects on others. Those others are just as capable of reason as he is. They were born in a place where a certain variety of Christianity is practiced, or perhaps in another religious community. But they have different opinions. Different ideas. And Locke is not quick to dismiss those differences.
I think that the distinction between private knowledge and public policy is useful today, not to help us resolve religious differences. But to allow us to have those differences, or other types of differences, and still come up with policies that can be supported by multiple groups. Usually, politics is a matter of concession power, and ideology has to be softened in order to come up with compromise. However, Locke doesn't seem to need to soften his ideological adherence to Christianity in order to endorse tolerance. In fact, his conviction that there must be a God keeps him from allowing atheists into his commonwealth. It may be the case that Locke offers us a way to stay true to ideology while participating in common policies that other, disparate groups can accept as well.
Here is an example: I, as a pacifist (and I am not being hypothetical, I really am a pacifist), may be able to accept some specific Just War policy not because I believe that War is justifiable, but because I believe that it will in fact stop a particular war from happening. In other words, it may have a practical consequence that I approve it. After all, in theory, just war should limit war (even though it rarely does in practice). Usually, a someone who thinks that there is nothing particularly wrong with war and that it need not be justified would not participate in such a policy, but let's say that the policy is worded as to not exclude this possibility. Then there is no real reason for such a militarist not to accept the policy. Neither one has to agree that "Just War" is possible or that war itself isn't just fine. Private knowledge in contradiction to public policy is not negated, but the policy persists, and is able to yield any of the positive results it was designed for.
Of course, it is possible to object to Locke's liberalism in general. Not everyone accepts it as fundamental. But within the liberal democratic societies influenced by it, there are still substantial policy failures simply because different groups refuse to compromise at all, simply because it would mean working with people they disagree with. Locke at least offers a possible way to clarify our positions, and to accept policies that don't directly reflect ideologies without sacrificing the ideology.
You can see, this idea is still in its initial phase. Some day, I would like to develop it, perhaps as a course of study for another degree. And I would be happy to begin that development here, by getting feedback, even criticism of it. Feel free to say anything you like.
No comments:
Post a Comment