John Locke's Philosophy of Tolerance

Classified in Religion

Written on in English with a size of 2.98 KB

John Locke on Tolerance

John Locke regards God as the foundation and guarantor of reason, but acknowledged that religion was a serious threat to peace and order.

Limits of Religious Knowledge

Locke acknowledges that if reason has its limits in matters of knowledge, it has no less in religious matters. Nobody, therefore, is in possession of absolute religious truth. But religion is born of conviction, constituting a sphere where political authority cannot and should not intervene. Locke thus postulates the defense of religious freedom and a commitment to tolerance.

Arguments for Tolerance

Locke puts forward arguments in favor of tolerance: that the ills of the political community are not the product of religious division, but of human intolerance; and that intolerance is inconsistent with the tenets of Christian love and charity.

Separation of Church and State

Church and state have different interests, and to satisfy them, authorities should draw on different means. But just as civil society requires authority, the religious community could do without it because it is a 'society of men gathered voluntarily'. There is no need, therefore, for bishops or priests.

Why No Religious Coercion?

There is no reason for religious coercion: first, because no one can be sure they know the absolute truth about salvation (limits on knowledge); and second, because the soul cannot be saved against its will and conviction. As we see, Locke strongly attacks dogmatism.

Civil vs. Religious Spheres

Locke insists that we must not confuse the civil and religious spheres. Religious faith and the salvation of the soul are not matters of state; tolerance, then, is a matter of political prudence. Judges cannot legislate or enforce obedience in areas not within their purview. The state should only be interested in peace and citizen security, and the exercise of religion is compatible with those purposes.

Limits of Tolerance

But does tolerance have its limits? What should be done in case of civil and religious conflict? In this respect, Locke is prudent and optimistic. He relies on the good basis of religion, saying that if the State and the Church both strive for the good of the people or souls, the means they use are not so different. The boundaries of tolerance must always exclude actions that undermine its purpose.

Excluding Atheists

Thus, for Locke, tolerance must have limits. Opinions or actions that are contrary to human society or the moral rules 'necessary for the preservation of civil society' should be excluded from the benefits of tolerance. The limits of tolerance should also apply to atheists, according to Locke, because they have no reliable word (oath).

Religious Freedom: A Basic Principle

For Locke, therefore, religious freedom is a basic principle of political society.

Related entries: