Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Book IV, Chapters 18-19

John Locke, 1690

Chapter XVIII: Of Faith and Reason, and their Distinct Provinces

Locke begins by asserting that we need to set down the boundaries between reason and faith, as any number of conflicts have arisen as a result of the confusion between the two. All sects should be glad to use reason whenever possible, as reason is a universal currency. The key passages are

“Reason, therefore, here, as contradistinguished to faith, I take to be the discovery of the certainty or probability of such propositions or truths which the mind arrives at by deduction made from such ideas, which it has got by the use of its natural faculties; viz. by sensation or reflection.

“Faith, on the other side, is the assent to any proposition, not thus made out by the deductions of reason, but upon the credit of the proposer, as coming from God, in some extraordinary way of communication. This way of discovering truths to men, we call revelation” (XVIII, 2).

Traditional revelation cannot impart any new, simple ideas. By “simple ideas,” Locke means those accessible to the senses. Paul might have had a direct revelation of God, but unless it was of an experience we have had previously, it is impossible to convey it. Therefore, we are dependent on reason for all of our simple ideas. Locke maintains here a distinction between “traditional” and “original” revelation; the first is conveyed by words, the second is a direct, almost mystical experience of God. Anything is possible in the second, but not everything can be conveyed.

Traditional revelation may make us aware of propositions also accessible by reason, but such knowledge will always be less certain than if we had discovered it through reason. Which is to say that God could give us the Pythagorean theorem through revelation, but our knowledge of it would be less certain than if we had discovered it through reasoning. Likewise, traditional revelation may teach us of Noah’s flood, but that knowledge is still less certain than if we had been there to witness it.

Even original revelation cannot override the clear evidence of reason. Faith will never require us to believe anything absurd, such as that a body may be in two places at once. Since God gave us reasoning, it follows that any proposition which totally contradicted reason would either have to be false or it would destroy the better part of God’s workmanship by rendering our mental capacities totally useless and untrustworthy.

Reason is even more significant in the case of traditional revelation. Believing or not believing a proposition passed down through tradition or word of mouth is a matter of whether or not reason assents to it.

“In all things, therefore, where we have clear evidence from our ideas, and those principles of knowledge I have above mentioned, reason is the proper judge; and revelation, though it may, in consenting with it, confirm its dictates, yet cannot in such cases invalidate its decrees: nor can we be obliged, where we have the clear and evident sentience of reason, to quit it for the contrary opinion, under a pretense that it is matter of faith: which can have no authority against the plain and clear dictates of reason.”

Things which are above reason and/or cannot be properly understood are the proper subjects of faith. zB: the resurrection of the body, the rebellion of Lucifer, etc. Reason can’t know such things.

The distinctions get finer here: Locke still maintains that revelation cannot contradict reason, if reason speaks from basic principles and has clear and distinct ideas, or builds on the evidential of senses. However, since God does use revelation, reason must give way to it on occasion if it contradicts the probably conjectures of reason. Basically, revelation settles the question if it’s in doubt.

Whatever God reveals is certain true; however, it is the task of reason, particularly in matters of traditional revelation, is to determine whether or not the revelation is really divine. Here Lock makes some vague noises about how true revelation will be immediately clear as such, without explaining how.

The chapter ends by reiterating the necessity of being clear about the difference between reason and revelation. Without that distinction, there is no way to have intelligent religious conversation, much less solve any problems. This transforms religion from the gift that should distinguish man from beast, into something less rational and lower than any animal.

Chapter XIX: Of Enthusiasm

Anyone who searches for truth must proceed from love of truth. While everyone claims to love truth, very few do. The only proof of properly loving truth is the refusal to grant a proposition any more certainty than it actually possesses. The tendency to infuse proof with more certainty than it possesses out of personal preference is often accompanied by a tyrannical desire to dictate the opinions of others. After all, if one is willing to impose on one’s own reason and do violence to it, it’s natural to do the same to others.

Locke dismisses “enthusiasm” (i.e. being moved by the spirit) as an equally improper ground for assenting to a proposition, because it claims to be revelation unmoored from reason. However, reason and revelation are inseparable. Reason is natural revelation, and divine revelation only enlarges on reason through alternate means, but never contradicts it.

Enthusiasm is a natural outgrowth of human laziness. Strict reasoning is difficult and time consuming. Since revelation is a much easier way to obtain knowledge, men with certain temperaments - often melancholic - tend to imagine themselves in direct communion with God.

7. What is meant by enthusiasm. This I take to be properly enthusiasm, which, though founded neither on reason nor divine revelation, but rising from the conceits of a warmed or overweening brain, works yet, where it once gets footing, more powerfully on the persuasions and actions of men than either of those two, or both together: men being most forwardly obedient to the impulses they receive from themselves; and the whole man is sure to act more vigorously where the whole man is carried by a natural motion. For strong conceit, like a new principle, carries all easily with it, when got above common sense, and freed from all restraint of reason and check of reflection, it is heightened into a divine authority, in concurrence with our own temper and inclination.

Spurred on by laziness, man, once convinced that he feels inspired by God through enthusiasm, typically refuses to verify anything he comes to belief by reason. After all, his knowledge is felt to be so immediate, so secure, that reason pales next to it.

Enthusiasm can be discovered through its groundlessness. In essence, men moved by enthusiasm, “are sure, because they are sure: and their persuasions are right, because they are strong in them” (9).

While it’s impossible to deny that a man has felt something, the question must always be asked whether or not his inclination is actually from God, or if it’s a particular, personal desire. If it’s a proposition that can be justified by reason, there’s no reason to think it’s divine revelation and not the product of reason. If it can’t be justified, then there needs to be some sort of proof that it was inspired by God, and those touched by enthusiasm typically lack any. Even if firmly persuaded of the truth of their action/belief, men can still make mistakes, in the way Paul did when persecuting Christians.

If a belief conforms to reason or attested revelation/Scripture, we can safely take it for true. Even if it turns out that it’s not an immediate revelation of God, we can’t come to harm so long as it stays within the boundaries of reason and previous revelation. If not, however, we must wait for some sort of external sign or miracle to validate it. Hence the significance of miracles.

The Reasonableness of Christianity

John Locke 1695

1. The necessity and significance of the Gospel: Law and Faith

Any reading of the Bible has to begin with the supposition that Adam fell from grace. However, people tend to run to one two extremes in interpreting this fact that either undermine religion as a whole or the value of Christianity specifically. Either they claim that Adam’s fall condemned all of mankind to eternal suffering and torment, or they claim that such a supposition would be so contrary to the goodness of God that there must not be a need for any redemption. Jesus, instead, is the preacher of natural religion.

Locke stands between the two. He begins by opposing the tendency to read complex theological doctrines into the Bible, claiming that it must be understood as its original audience would have understood it. Under those criteria, the assertion that God punished Adam with death can only mean that he made Adam mortal; it would be incomprehensible and unjust if any other ruler had sentenced a criminal to death, and, rather than executing him, tortured him for eternity. Moreover, it would also be unjust to damn all of mankind to eternal torment because of the action of one individual who was never elected as representative of the whole. (Good democratic reading of the Bible!) Claiming that all God did was make Adam and his progeny mortal solves both of these problems. First, because it is much more moderate and follows a literal interpretation of the Bible. Second, because God cannot be accused of being unjust in this schema. Since no human has the right to immortality, God is well within his rights to deprive mankind of it. Even mortal life is a gift, given that, even with all of its miseries, we’d rather live than not.

Thus, though we become mortal in Adam, we are only judged for our individual sins. Furthermore, out of his great mercy, eternal life is restored through Christ. The problem, though, is that only the righteous are justified and can be restored to life. however, if we judge by the law of works, no man can be counted as righteous. (Here, Locke eschews the sort of arguments that Pelagius and Kant had about why and whether or not the human will fails to perform the law; he just attributes inevitable failure to frailty without getting more specific). Anyway, the law of works is found in the Old Testament, as well as in the positive injunctions of Jesus. Some of those commands belong to finite periods, like that of the state of Israel, while others are more general. Nonetheless, they all show man the impossibility of righteousness.

That is why god offers the law of faith. An unfortunate number of pages follow citing examples of biblical passages, but basically in order to be saved you have to recognize Jesus as the Messiah. While on earth, Jesus performed miracles to convince people of this, the Resurrection being the greatest and most decisive. So the apostles preaches Jesus’s status as messiah. Even John the Baptist recognized this, declaring Jesus the messiah at his baptism.

Messiahship could be proclaimed through a) miracles b) indirect phrases (such as references to the kingdom of God c) direct phrases. While Jesus announced himself through the first two, supposedly, Locke runs into the tricky problem that Jesus never actually declared himself the Messiah in so many words. His solution is that doing so would have immediately roused the ire of the Jewish leaders. Therefore, in order to properly minister to the masses, Jesus chose to be discreet about his true nature while alive. Staying alive as long as possible gave Jesus the possibility to live a life in conformity with the prophecies about him. His general mode was to reveal himself in subtle ways that would be understandable to a few, but lost on the masses, who were expecting a very different type of messiah. The same logic applies for why he didn’t forcefully change Pilate’s mind.

The next question raised is whether or not the Christian faith is a historical or justifying faith. Presumably there’s some sort of background conversation here. Locke basically says he doesn’t care if people consider it faith in a historical fact, so long as they acknowledge it to be a saving faith, in accordance with the promise of Christ. Then comes a weird question about how it is devils aren’t saved if they believe in Christ. Answer: god hates devils AND aliens. Only humans are saved by belief, because only humans repent.

Though up until now the text has spoke of faith as that which saves, here Locke insists that repentance and an effort to live a good life are necessary to salvation. Faith cannot supplant the law.

More difficulties arise, namely, what of the pagans who have never heard the word of the Gospel? The first answer is vague: we must acknowledge the limits to our understanding. Also, though, Locke suggests that God gave all men the use of reason, and so, through proper reasoning, a pagan might find his or her way to the gist of religion: that God is good, that one is morally obligated to forgive and repent.

Objection: then what is the point of Christianity if people can reason their way to religion/morality. Answer: who are we kidding? People are pretty fucking stupid. They’re never going to reason their way to a total moral system. We need Jesus to make it clear to the world that there is one God. True, the Jews had this knowledge first, but they were ill-equipped to spread it, as they were very small, isolated, and not on the best of terms with their neighbors. After Christ, though, the knowledge spread to most of mankind. Even Islam recognizes this truth.

Basically, most of religion/morality can be reached through reason, but anyone trying to promulgate a coherent moral system would either have to claim the authority of revelation or of reason. No one did so with reason prior to Christ - though there were scatterings of truth - and thus revelation was necessary. Furthermore, revelation of an afterlife made virtue seems like a “good investment,” while before it was like a hot poor chick, that everyone wanted to look at and no one wanted to marry. Jesus encourages piety, and discourages useless, ornate (i.e. Catholic) rituals.

The text ends with a discussion of the Epistles, which seem to demand a number of things in addition to faith and the effort to live a good life. Locke meets this difficulty by suggesting that Paul wrote to established Christians in order to clarify very specific issues. The Epistles are relative in a way the Gospels aren’t. The good Christian should do his best to understand what they teach, but if they conflict or remain unclear, he should suspend judgment on the matter and trust in God.

In sum, God gave man reason and a law, but when man proved far too stupid for this, he sent Jesus to make clear what was needed for salvation to the mass of mankind.

Notes/take away:

Salvation = faith in Jesus as Messiah + best effort to live a good life. Religion is accessible in theory by reason, but God offers revelation in order to accommodate the masses.

Also, as opposed to Spinoza or Hume, miracles are being used to argue for the authenticity of Christ. Miracles prove the validity of the gospel; they're not yet the problem.