Locke on Atheism
Many people are aware of President George Bush (senior)’s notorious assertion “I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” It seems that the 41st president isn’t the only one who basic rights and dignities are not entirely universal. In A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689), John Locke places an important caveat on the bounds of religious toleration:
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
Ironically, Locke begins his Letter by noting “I esteem that toleration to be the chief characteristic mark of the true Church.” Except, it seems, when it comes to those damnable atheists. Locke felt that non-believers wouldn’t behave morally because they had no reason to. As they 
denied the ultimate good-behaviour payoff, heaven, there was no reason (that Locke could see) that they would be motivated to abide by the established norms of society. Sadly, what is probably of greater concern to us today than Locke making this argument is the frequency with which it, and various close facsimiles, are still heard.
Locke for his part has been criticized for inconsistency in his views, as while he excluded non-believers his Letter simultaneously argued for greater toleration of Jews and Muslims. There was, however, one other group that joined atheists outside the bounds of forbearance: Roman Catholics were also excluded, although for political reasons—they pledge allegiance to a foreign authority, the pope.
CITATIONS:
1. John Locke, A Letter Concerning Toleration, translated by William Popple, 1689. (Online here.)
Comments
11 Comments so far
John Locke’s method is also known as the “banning of atheists because they make us look stupid” line. That and they were afraid the poor people would rise up and butcher them. To be fair the serfs have repeatedly attempted to rise up and butcher their masters- Europe has had occasionals peasent revolt through out the medieval period.
If you read Plato’s Laws, he calls for the counseling of atheists and then if they don’t have a change of mind—they are to be taken care silently and in the night. Plato called Atheism a malady dangerous to society. The Spartan republic xenelasia laws concerned itself with atheists–they were forbidden to enter. Plato is influenced by the Doric Greeks.
Atheism is no joking matter–it is dangerous to the state.
Yes, I remember reading that part of Plato, but it slipped my mind as it paled in comparison to some of his other themes: totalitarian leanings, ruthless subordination of the individual to the collective, selective breeding, infanticide, class stratification, elitism, race myths, cynical propaganda, slavish devotion to dubious metaphysical assumptions etc.
You could right a book about the dodgy ideas in his Republic alone. But of course, it’s already been done…
As for ‘Atheism is no joking matter as it is dangerous to the state’, please tell me you’re being ironic…
Vox Day has written a rather nice book called “The Irrational Atheist” and in the chapter called “The Red Hand of Atheism” discusses all the bloody Atheists that committed democide. He counts 59 such Atheist leaders that have killed over 20,000 people. Let us look at Danny Kleibold and Harris, the Columbine killers. Since Atheists deny god and the High Church Atheists are very militant about it, they don’t know what the “good” is. For Truth, Beauty, and Justice exist in something and that something is God. To deny God is to deny the absoluteness of Truth, Beauty, Justice.
And on what “standards” do you judge Plato? Communist standards of an advocate of open society? If I remember correctly, Edward Gibbon wrote that this open society of Rome caused its downfall. Too many foreign elements that destroyed the Roman Republic and ushered in the Roman Empire.
Philosophy begins on the Natural Law and one of those principles called Justice, Dikaiosyne, is manifested in the Natural Order. Philosophy begins with Nature and the Logos embeded in Nature.
Yet again the same tired old adage/fallacy gets trotted out. Simply pointing out that various individuals were atheists proves nothing. Have you even tried to establish that their lack of belief is a direct cause of their crimes? I could just as easily provide a list of devout theists who have committed atrocities; and in such cases it would be much easier to display the link between their theistic beliefs and their actions, as they are often motivated by their belief in absolute values, divine destiny, and the supposed will of their God/gods. Adolf Hitler, for example. If lack of belief in God necessarily leads to atrocities, as you seem to imply, how would you explain the millions of atheists (the overwhelming majority in fact) who aren’t psychopathic mass murderers? Simple anomalies? Millions of them? I find it far more sensible to just acknowledge that human beings are capable of committing horrendous acts, regardless of their religious inclinations. Claiming that one side or the other of the theist/non-theist divide holds a monopoly on inhumanity is absurd.
‘To deny God is to deny the absoluteness of Truth, Beauty, Justice.’ No, that’s a non-sequitur. Try reading Euthyphro again. Nonetheless, I personally see no reason to believe in the existence of God(s), nor Truth, Justice, Beauty or Good (taken in the absolute sense you employ these terms1). I think it’s up to us (humanity) to work towards creating a stable world that ensures a base level of security and rights for all persons, and extolling values that help achieve those ends, rather than presupposing the existence of mystical individuals and entities and then hanging everything on them.
As for judging Plato, I think it’s important to subject his work to criticism. The Republic is a key work by a major philosopher and has been/is extraordinarily influential. I think it’s enormously instructive in showing exactly what can go wrong in political philosophy, specifically in the blind subordination of the needs and interests of the individual to the needs and interests of the State, and in giving primacy to contentious metaphysical assumptions. We can learn a lot from pointing out the flaws in Plato’s philosophy.
Philosophy begins with critical reflection and balanced assessment of philosophical issues, not simply accepting those concepts that are most appealing and silencing everyone who disagrees.
Note (1): By denying the existence of ‘Truth’ with a capital ‘T’ I’m referring specifically to the idea of objective, subsistent Universals existing in a transcendental world, such as we find in Plato’s theory of the Forms. I’m certainly not endorsing any kind of postmodern hyper-scepticism.
Atheism is just an extreme form of arrogance. You are so blinded by your ego that you think that there is no being underlying everything that is existence as you know it. Do you really want to assume the responsibility of claiming that you know so much about the all expansive universe in all its forms so much that you can make a solid claim that there is no supreme being of which you could have no possible comprehension? Pretty bold and pretty stupid.
Hi Martin,
You’ll find that few atheists make “the solid claim that there is no supreme being”. The reason is awareness of the (well-known) problem of proving a negative. Here’s Bertrand Russell’s famous example From “Is there a God?”:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”
The fact that we can’t prove Russell’s teapot exists is no reason to believe that it does exist. In a similar way, can we prove that Bigfoot, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Boogyman don’t exist? No, we can’t, but it doesn’t follow that we should therefore believe in them, if no good reasons for such belief exist.
In regard to God, the standard atheistic position is that there is no good reason to believe that God exists; furthermore, it is highly improbable that such a being exists. The atheist is no more required to prove that God doesn’t exist than you are to prove that Santa Claus doesn’t.
As for your silly remarks about ‘arrogance’ and ‘ego’, these are simply personal attacks that have absolutely no philosophical relevance. Even IF an individual were supremely arrogant and egotistical, those personal quirks would have no bearing on whether or not their philosophical claims were correct or not. Please try to keep your comments on the topic at hand, and remember to separate the individual from the argument.
I admit that I have not read enough of John Locke’s work to be an expert. There is still much philosophy I must be introduced too. However I admire Locke’s positions on individual liberty and thought that my own philosophy had been influenced by this man. I was shocked to find that Locke had such prejudiced views concerning atheists (and not to mention Roman Catholics). I am an atheist and was once a Roman Catholic! Damn . . .
Yet, I feel I can still admire the good things about philosophers like Plato and Locke and be critical of their more negative notions. Like scientists, philosophers should be given close scrutiny by their peers and the general public. While a scientist may have a theory of theirs disproven, that does not mean they where “bad” people, so long as they where honest in their scientific endeavor. Philosophers are similar in this respect. I believe Locke, Plato and others who disprove of atheism on the grounds that it is inherently immoral believe so because they both truly believe in a god or gods who dictate the true law of man. They also see atheism as a form of moral relativism, yet not all atheists are relativists, though many are and will admit that morality is subjective.
I’d argue against the “on atheism” posts. If you’re going to have Locke on Atheism, why not Nietzsche on Christianity? (And who is being crueler, there?)
Well, if you’re going to argue, let’s hear the argument. What’s an example of a Nietzsche quote that you feel is the equivalent of the Locke/Plato/Descartes quotes?
i would contend that if one wishes to “believe” in god(s), the only way to do so and remain consistent is to make them so abstract or distant as to be beyond reason or arguments. In such a case, any moral or other guidance or characteristics they ascribe to the god(s) cannot be connected or derived from the abstract being, and an honest person must confess that they are simply obtaining their earthly rules and tips from somewhere else. of course, bigots have gotten a lot of traction out of the “mystery” or “paradox” or god(s) outright crazy ways….