I am sure anyone who has taken a history class has heard at least once of John locke. Ever hear the expression " Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"? Well John locke orginally said " Life, liberty and property" it was changed by Thomas Jefferson. Well enough of the history let's get to the heart of the issue.
What did John locke say about religious epistemology? Well he argued that any religious belief must have a foundation that is based on evidence. And if one were absent that the belief is totally unwarranted. He argued that the existence of God is obviously discovered by reason. He argued by the means of the cosmological argument to prove that God exists. But when it came to the matters of faith or religous truths he said that any revelation cannot condradict reason. That is to say any type of religious belief cannot go against what reason says is true. And if a religious belief contradicted reason than it should not be believed. For example let's say the Bible taught the earth has a face on it. Reason obviously contradicts this notion. So John locke would have rejected it. So even though John locke believed anything that came from God is true he said that reason can gurantee if this revelation really is from God. Not only is religous belief must be in harmony with reason but it also serves to discern whether a revelation is genuine. It must have rational proofs to show that it is divine. If there is no proof then one is irrational.
John locke proceedes to give out three criteria to discern a genuine revelation from God.
1. It must not dishonor God or be inconsistent with natural religion or natural moral law.
2. It must not inform man of anything insignificant, indifferent or easily discovered by natural ability.
3. It must be confirmed by supernatural signs.
As for Christians beliefs he agued that fufilled miracle and prophecy make it reasonable that Christ was divine and what he taught was true so Christianity must be true.
Well that is it for what John locke thought on the issue tomorrow I will discuss another thinker who had a radically different approach to the issue than John locke's theological rationalism.
What did John locke say about religious epistemology? Well he argued that any religious belief must have a foundation that is based on evidence. And if one were absent that the belief is totally unwarranted. He argued that the existence of God is obviously discovered by reason. He argued by the means of the cosmological argument to prove that God exists. But when it came to the matters of faith or religous truths he said that any revelation cannot condradict reason. That is to say any type of religious belief cannot go against what reason says is true. And if a religious belief contradicted reason than it should not be believed. For example let's say the Bible taught the earth has a face on it. Reason obviously contradicts this notion. So John locke would have rejected it. So even though John locke believed anything that came from God is true he said that reason can gurantee if this revelation really is from God. Not only is religous belief must be in harmony with reason but it also serves to discern whether a revelation is genuine. It must have rational proofs to show that it is divine. If there is no proof then one is irrational.
John locke proceedes to give out three criteria to discern a genuine revelation from God.
1. It must not dishonor God or be inconsistent with natural religion or natural moral law.
2. It must not inform man of anything insignificant, indifferent or easily discovered by natural ability.
3. It must be confirmed by supernatural signs.
As for Christians beliefs he agued that fufilled miracle and prophecy make it reasonable that Christ was divine and what he taught was true so Christianity must be true.
Well that is it for what John locke thought on the issue tomorrow I will discuss another thinker who had a radically different approach to the issue than John locke's theological rationalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment