Religion and Political Thought: The importance of John Locke
One thing people may have noticed in my new paper about libertarianism is that there are a number of references to the Bible. Several books of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament are cited generally, plus Psalm 82, as are various passages in the Epistles, and Matthew 11. Still, nobody can claim that this is a theological tract; it doesn't come close to being any such thing. However, no-one can say that these references to the Bible are anything but strongly supportive of the political positions taken in the paper. Moreover, at no point does the text say that one must believe in the Bible -even though, as you can guess, I regard the 'good book' as filled with material that is well worth belief or, anyway, basic agreement. It may include mistakes of various kinds but it nonetheless is a repository of truth, indeed, of numerous truths, each of which has considerable objective -real world- value. It has come to my attention recently, through comments made by a talking head on C-Span, that the source of my approach is John Locke. It was Locke who, among 'modern' thinkers, first took the view that the truths in the Bible, if they are actually true, can be demonstrated empirically. Not all truths, some really are matters of "faith" as we normally understand the term, but those that relate to human conduct, what we usually consider to be "social issues." Of course, with Locke, as among many other philosophers studied in university classes, this is to talk about antiseptic language removed several steps from any kind of emotion, from feeling much of anything. Philosophy, after all, is a rational activity which puts reason ahead of everything else. Regardless, Locke, as I understand him, was directly on target. Reflecting on the matter, my best guess is that, years ago, the time I was a philosophy major as a college student, I read Locke for a class assignment, then thought to myself, "this is very true" and filed the concept in deep memory where it has been ever since. The source was forgotten since my primary interests were elsewhere -girls, art, music, girls, history, futures research, girls, science fiction, girls, new kinds of political movements, etc.- and Locke faded from consciousness. But he was always there, in my subconscious, and, anon, I have made good use of his Idea. Which is, simply put, that all social truths in the Bible are provable in the real world, provable empirically, if you make the effort. The best reply to this observation should be "of course," but for many people that may not be their response at all. Some forms of religious faith, hardly limited to the usual suspects, viz, Evangelicals and believing Catholics, and observant Jews, deny that the Bible can be read in any way except devotionally. Often enough Atheists agree -to the point that "therefore why bother? Its all hocus pocus, and is only valid for the simple minded." However, there are many ways to read the Bible. This does not mean that reading the holy book as literature, for example, requires you to junk your faith and sign on with Cultural Marxists, but it does say that you do yourself a favor to look at the Bible as objectively as it is in you to do, and learn new lessons in the process. The same principle applies to reading it as history, or for its use of language, or anything else. You can look at the Bible as a contemporary document, that is, as a product of the time in which it was written. Important in a discussion of John Locke is the Bible's understanding of philosophy. Not that the text focuses all that much on philosophy, but it does include one book (aka 'chapter' or essay in an anthology) that is philosophical in character, Ecclesiastes, and there are various references to philosophy per se. We learn in Acts 17, for example, that the Apostle Paul studied the Stoic and Epicurean philosophers at some point in his life before his visit to Athens, enough to talk with Stoics and Epicureans he met along the way, and there are passages in his letters that make it clear that he knew philosophy generally. A prime example occurs in Romans 1, which says, in part: "For all that may be known of God by men, lies plainly before their eyes; indeed, God himself has disclosed it to them. His invisible attributes, that is to say his everlasting power and deity, ever since the world began, to the eye of reason." Which, whatever your religious identification, is a re-statement of Aristotle albeit in a Christian context. Reason is a sure guide to truth, Paul said, if you use your reason wisely, if you are honest with yourself, if you think carefully and logically, and if you do not misuse reason to arrive at conclusions you already have, to confirm pre-existing biases. What Locke did, and he was a believing Christian who took the Bible seriously, was to more-or-less update Paul for the modern world. To say the very least, it would be helpful in the political realm if we could show, with hard evidence, that the values which people derive from the Bible are far more than superstitions or nothing but irrational fears or wishful thinking. Alas, and Locke also discussed emotion-centered religion, some forms of faith simply do not permit discussion of what the Bible says in any context other than as "words of the Divine," no tests wanted or needed. Hence, appeal to the Bible is regarded as appeal to final authority, no arguments possible. There is no other way to read the Bible except as divine revelation. So they say. In the context of American politics this viewpoint is untenable. Not everyone agrees that the Bible is a source of authority -for anything. This is true for Buddhists even when they happen to agree with Christians about all kinds of issues, it is true for Hindus and Zoroastrians and Confucians and Baha'is, , etc, and it is true for Atheists and many of the unaffiliated, people that journalists often refer to as "nones." To say the same thing, since most Democrats are not especially religious and some are openly anti-religious, this means that a large swath of voters on the political Left simply won't hear you if you use the Bible as a source of authority. And not just Democrats; this is also the case for many libertarians who are registered Republicans. But we can work with principles from the Bible in the public arena if we focus on real world truths that we may derive from the Judeo-Christian scriptures, truths borne out by findings of empirical psychologists, by empirical historians, by honest-to-the-facts biographers, by at least some anthropologists, and still others. Locke was clear that this is not to discuss questions of metaphysics or "salvation." This is not an open sesame to talk about how "faith in Jesus has made you a new person," or how, in your opinion, the only way to talk about spiritual things is in terms of the Christian trinity, or any other such theme. But is it good in any way to tolerate homosexuality? It manifestly is not -because the empirical facts are what they are, damning of all homosexual behavior, all of which is dysfunctional, most of which is unhygienic, and all of which is psychologically damaging. Either you want to be effective in the "public square" or you do not. The problem lies in the fact that many people in the Evangelical world are utterly clueless about the behavioral sciences and how to use psychology in political discussion or debate, or, for that matter, sociology or social psychology. And believers, both Christians and most Orthodox Jews, generally have extreme distaste for the social or psychological sciences. But is this warranted? The answer is that "it depends." There is no question that as of 2018 undoubtedly a majority of faculty at the great majority of universities in America are Leftists in outlook. And, also without doubt, their viewpoint takes it as an article of faith that the Bible not only contains some errors, it is just about entirely a set of fables. However, if you do some basic research you will discover that, yes, indeed, there are a good number of psychology professionals and others who take a very critical view of homosexuality -something quite consistent with the views of the Bible on the issue. Besides those whom I discussed in my paper about libetarianism, mention might be made of Robert Gagnon, a Lutheran scholar, of Neil E. Whitehead, a researcher from New Zealand, Father Nicanor Austriaco, a Greek Orthodox priest, even David Horowitz in his 2000 book, Politics of Bad Faith. For that matter, there now are two well-respected research scientists at Johns Hopkins University who have been openly critical of various homosexual claims, Dr. Lawrence Mayer and Dr. Paul McHugh. This is a far cry from the era when John Money was still alive and acted as the de facto voice of the school when the issue of homosexuality was topical. Dr Money never met a homosexual, or 'transgender 'individual, or sado-masochist, or any other sexual deviant he did not like. Mention should also be made of three organizations that have produced valuable research into homosexual pathology. One is Mass Resistance, which documents many of the political inroads that homosexuals have made in the past 20 or 30 years, another is Life Site News, which supplies research papers on homosexuality as well as on 'right to life' topics. And there is Regent University. Not that I am some sort of "fan" of Pat Robertson. Maybe half the time I have listened to him I either have had no opinion or have disagreed with his views. I do not think you can pray your way out of a hurricane and I do not think that you can expect God to reward you with a pile of money if you donate to the 700 Club. Who knows? Maybe it can happen in a small percentage of cases, this is not for me to say, but generally, across the board? I really don't think so. Indeed, when someone uses the figure of speech, "crazy uncle," who most comes to mind for me is Pat Robertson. His heart is usually in the right place but some days, if you ask me, he is off his rocker. Big time. But Robertson founded Regent University and from every indication he is doing far more right than otherwise with his school. For instance it has a very professional cyber-security department and a respected Law school. And it has produced a series of publications that help demolish homosexual claims of many kinds. In other words, there are resources and experts to turn to who have important things to say about homosexuality as a psychopathology. And there are resources from the recent past that are very helpful even if they may not be as current as you might like. At the head of this list is OR Adams. 1998 book, updated in 2001, As We Sodomize America. This was written by a New Mexico attorney who went to considerable plains to describe every (sick and disgusting) truth about homosexuality imaginable. This opus cannot be recommended highly enough. If you can find a copy it is worth its considerable weight (700 pages) in gold. The second half of the book concerns Adams' religious beliefs but the first half, more than 300 pages, is a meticulously researched study that describes matters in graphic detail. Reading the book is an education into everything ugly and demented and morbid in human sexuality, but is knowledge which is necessary if you ever discuss the topic in public and need to know what you are talking about. Adams died recently, at age 85; he was one of a kind and gave us all the benefit of his considerable skills as a researcher. You can also use research by Masters and Johnson for the purpose of criticizing the sexual Left in America. This is in reference to their 1978 book, Homosexuality in Perspective. Keep in mind that until the early 1980s, Masters and Johnson were darlings of the Left; some people may remember why. In any case, M & J are now anathema on the Left -because their clinical / experimental sex research showed conclusively, that is, empirically, that homosexuals can quit homosexuality in most cases, in the 70 % range at a minimum, and regain sexual normality. This view is now totally rejected on the Left. Why? Because the Left, as a result of the AIDS pandemic of the 1980s-1990s, switched their strategy and ceased to call their behavior a matter of choice, something that could be changed, which it is, and began to claim that it was the result of an innate genetic condition, a view for which there is NO scientific evidence whatsoever, even if screenwriter Dick Wolf has written at least one script in which the claim is made that "proof" of genetic causation has been found. That claim is totally false. Wolf happens to be, about many other topics, possibly the best screenwriter in the United States. But on this subject he could not possibly have been more wrong. There also are a relatively small number of colleges and universities where students do not need to worry about pro-homosexual propaganda being advocated by liberal arts professors, among them Wheaton College, Indiana Wesleyan, Concordia, Nyack College, BYU, Liberty University, and Yeshiva University. But people need to take serious interest, or else, as Heather MacDonald has sarcastically remarked, we may be heading to the place where even college education will become home schooling for Christian believers. No-one in their right mind could possibly want any such thing. Locke shows us the way to make Biblical moral stands against homosexuality persuasive in public debate or in any other venue in secular society. For a good beginning on the subject of Locke's philosophy, that is, in addition to what many people do know, that his ideas were used by James Madison as his chief source for writing the US Constitution, is provided below. This material is taken from philosophypages.com, under the heading "A Guide to Locke's Essay." Hopefully, this information has been helpful to readers. Billy Rojas ------------------------------------------------------------ Faith and Reason Locke was also interested in traditional issues about the relation between faith (assent to revealed truth) and reason (discovery of demonstrative truth) as alternative sources of human conviction. For propositions about which the certainty of demonstrative knowledge is unavailable, our assent may be grounded upon faith in revelation; but Locke argued that the degree of our confidence in the truth of such a proposition can never exceed our assurance that the revelation is of genuinely divine origin, and this itself is subject to careful rational evaluation. [Essay IV xvi 14<http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/locke/ctb4c16.htm#14>] Since God has provided both avenues of belief for the benefit of human achievement, Locke supposed, they can never conflict with each other if properly used. Faith is appropriate, but only with respect to vital issues that lie beyond the reach of reason; to allow any further extent to non-rational religious convictions would leave us at the mercy of foolish and harmful speculations. In any case where revelation (understood as an extraordinary communication from God) and ordinary human reason coincide in support of the same truth, Locke argued, it is reason that provides the superior ground, since our assurance of the reliability of the revelation itself can never exceed the perfection of demonstrative certainty. [Essay IV xviii 4-11<http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/locke/ctb4c18.htm#4>] Divorcing the (properly complementary) resources of revelation and reason, Locke supposed, is dangerous because it tends to encourage the promulgation of reckless claims of the revealed origin of otherwise incredible propositions. "Enthusiasm," as Locke and many of his contemporaries feared, rests solely upon the emotional strength of persuasion as grounds for assent, and this is formally independent of the objective likelihood of its purportedly divine origin. [Essay IV xix 4-9<http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/locke/ctb4c19.htm#4>] In a sense, then, reason emerges from Locke's discussion as the ultimate arbiter of all legitimate human assent: either it discovers the demonstrative connections through which the truth of an individual proposition can be established with certainty, or it plays the most crucial role in certifying the legitimacy of a revealed proposition as divine rather than merely delusive. [Essay IV xix 12-16<http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/classics/locke/ctb4c19.htm#12>] Even though faith can play a role in human life, reason remains the most important basis for genuine human knowledge. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
