Reply
Wed 6 May, 2009 05:51 pm
Can anyone offer a well worded definition Locke would give for faith and/or religion? In his Letter Concerning Toleration, he writes one's faith cannot be true until he has come to a complete inwardly acceptance of its articles (therefore, belief isn't truly compelled forcefully). I don't have my copy on me right now, so I can't quote the exact words. For Locke, religion does not take on an absolute truth over all men but varies between individual. Two men can believe two different things and can both be "right" regarding the salvation of their souls(?). I started to think, "So, he thinks of faith as a kind of 'peace of mind.'" However, I can see peace of mind only as a single element of his concept of faith. It doesn't seem to cover his whole definition.
@Labyrinth,
Locke seems to have been a bit of an idiot
Quote: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.1
@memester,
Honestly, what you said seems to be the gist of what Locke said. As far as my own understanding, Locke's
Letter Concerning Toleration We cannot just believe what we are told but rather what we truly believe (I italicize because this is a central point in Locke's conception of faith discusses at the end of the post).
@memester,
memester;111771 wrote:Locke seems to have been a bit of an idiot
Yes, when reading it, I did notice that glaring intolerance for atheism in his call for tolerance. :Glasses:
@memester,
memester;111771 wrote:Locke seems to have been a bit of an idiot
That's unfair don't you think? One can't really judge historical figures too harshly by present day standards. Unless you are willing to judge yourself by futuristic standards.
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124992 wrote:That's unfair don't you think? One can't really judge historical figures too harshly by present day standards. Unless you are willing to judge yourself by futuristic standards.
I think the tomb-stone on every generation could be: "Sorry... we did the best we could."
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124992 wrote:That's unfair don't you think? One can't really judge historical figures too harshly by present day standards. Unless you are willing to judge yourself by futuristic standards.
but of course, I certainly
am !
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;124992 wrote:That's unfair don't you think? One can't really judge historical figures too harshly by present day standards. Unless you are willing to judge yourself by futuristic standards.
People in the future will judge people of today by their own standards. And in this case, there were atheists and theists who did not share Locke's prejudices in Locke's day, though perhaps not very many. But blindly going along with mainstream prejudices is never a virtue, in any age.
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;126198 wrote:People in the future will judge people of today by their own standards. And in this case, there were atheists and theists who did not share Locke's prejudices in Locke's day, though perhaps not very many. But blindly going along with mainstream prejudices is never a virtue, in any age.
But we have a mainstream prejudice against the past.
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;126215 wrote:But we have a mainstream prejudice against the past.
You might have a prejudice against the past, but not everyone does. Some even glorify portions of the past as a "golden age". I myself see nothing inherently good about something being either new or old. In fact, I would go so far as to say that it is downright silly to judge something as good or bad based upon whether it is old or new.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace