Locke's idea of faith

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » John Locke
  3. » Locke's idea of faith

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

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.
 
memester
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 08:30 am
@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
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Wed 16 Dec, 2009 11:15 am
@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).
 
Labyrinth
 
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 09:49 pm
@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:
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 09:54 pm
@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.
 
Arjuna
 
Reply Thu 4 Feb, 2010 11:00 pm
@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."
 
memester
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 01:26 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.
but of course, I certainly am !
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 01:20 pm
@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.
 
Jebediah
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 02:15 pm
@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.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Mon 8 Feb, 2010 03:02 pm
@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.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » John Locke
  3. » Locke's idea of faith
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 09/21/2020 at 03:48:05