Student

History 158

November 16, 2010

Locke vs. Bayle

John Locke and Pierre Bayle are both considered to be revolutionary writers in the field of religious toleration. Though both argued firmly for acceptance of religious toleration, the two differed in their opinions on atheism. While Locke believed that atheists did not deserve protections of religious toleration, Pierre Bayle argued theopposite and even argued amiably for atheism, bringing opposition to the negative connotations which society had placed on atheism. The main reasons for the two’s differences in opinion stem from their differing conceptions of relations between religion, society, and government. Locke’s principle beliefs dealt with toleration as a means of preventing political unrest. In order to do this, he strove todistinguish exactly the business of civil government from that of religion, though the two were still heavily intertwined. Essentially, Locke remained true to the belief that religion coincides as well as plays a role in society and government, despite his argument that they are separate institutions. Bayle, on the other hand, focused on toleration in the sense that morality is separate fromreligion, thus everyone’s morals spawn from the same social causes, allowing even those not involved in religion to be treated equally. Because of these differences in their beliefs to how religion played into society and government, Locke and Bayle consequently differed in their opinions on atheism, with Locke disclaiming its toleration and Bayle arguing for it.
To better understand Locke’s viewof a lack of toleration towards atheism, we must first look at the core beliefs of Locke. Locke approached the issue of toleration from a largely governmental standpoint. His biggest argument for toleration was the idea that toleration of multiple religious groups allows for an elimination of civil unrest. Since so much civil unrest was caused by magistrates not allowing the practice of certainreligions, toleration of all religions would lessen possibilities for rebellion. Much of his argument was formulated by his attempt to distinguish religion from civil government. In the text he defined government as the promoter of external values, saying “It is the Duty of the Civil Magistrate… to secure unto all the People in general… the just Possession of these [civil interests] belonging to thislife.” He goes on to add that the government should not handle matters of religion, stating “it neither can nor ought in any manner to be extended to the Salvation of Souls.” With these two statements, he drew the line between governments and religion. Essentially, Locke believed that government should promote external values such as life and liberty, but not involve itself in religious matters,for that should be left to man alone. Locke viewed church as “a voluntary Society of Men, joining themselves together… in order to the publick worshipping of God, in a manner effectual to the Salvation of their Souls.” His view of church and religion showed his belief that the institution of religion pertains mainly to internal values and finding salvation. Through these arguments, we see Locke’sbelief that since government and religion have different purposes; they are in turn separate institutions. Locke also argued that in churches and society, there must be present some laws or order, but since church should be free, society sets these laws. In addition, he believed it to be man’s duty to publically worship and seek salvation. He states, “All men know and acknowledge that God out tobe publickly worshipped.” Despite these two institutions being separate, he still attested to the fact that society and religion must still pertain to laws that align with government, and that worship is expected.
Although he believed government, religion, and society were distinct institutions, he acknowledges that each played a role in the workings of the others. Through this elaborate...