Rousseau's Philosophy of Religion and Theodicy

This document explores Jean-Jacques Rousseau's perspectives on the distinction between natural religion and revealed religion, as well as his views on the problem of theodicy.

Natural Religion vs. Revealed Religion

Revelation is understood as a divine manifestation where God reveals and communicates hidden and sacred truths to humanity. All religions founded on some kind of revelation are called **revealed religions**. Rousseau identifies **particularism** as a natural element in any dogmatic expression of revealed religion. Particularism is linked to an intellectualist conception of virtue, requiring knowledge of ritual and fundamental truths. Particularism fosters ethnocentrism, bigotry, and intolerance. Revealed religion is a form of religion that depends on supernatural revelation and is expressed in sacred books. Rousseau views the various forms of revealed religion as merely human institutions, characterized by mutual intolerance, with each claiming to be the only true one.

Features of Natural Religion

In contrast to revealed religion, natural religion is characterized by:

• Universalism
• Cultural Relativism
• Tolerance

When Rousseau speaks of a 'uniform worship,' which is the 'worship of the heart,' he refers to a universal religion that requires no learning because it is innate. This form of worship removes all intermediaries between humanity and God. In contrast to perspectives more connected with religious fanaticism (which might emphasize external acts like praying aloud), natural religion stresses the autonomy of conscience. It stands against the 'slavery' and arbitrariness of rituals in revealed religions, which often have clear political interpretations.

While Rousseau is a cultural relativist, we should not assume he is also a moral relativist. Moral relativism holds that there is no universal behavior considered true for all people. He relativizes the importance that cultural heritage may have, but argues this does not extend to moral values.

Rousseau and Theodicy

The word 'theodicy' is translated as 'divine justice' or 'justification of God'. It seeks to resolve the problem of divine justice. Theodicy is a discourse about God based on sound principles. In short, it is the human attempt to exonerate God from the existence of evil in the world.

Defining Theodicy

This issue is also seen in the contrasting positions of Rousseau, who considered theodicy possible and included it in his philosophy, and Voltaire, who abandoned that possibility.

Rousseau's Distinction: Physical vs. Moral Evil

Rousseau adopted the distinction between **physical evil** and **moral evil**. He argued that nature is not responsible for submitting to human whims. Moral evil, however, is not inevitable. It arises from the extreme inequalities tolerated by civilization, not from the state of nature, where only physical ailments and natural inequality existed. Thus, the human being is solely responsible for moral evil; for example, while some live in abundance, others are in misery.

Human Responsibility and Redemption

Humans have the option of achieving virtue and creating an egalitarian community, which would represent their redemption in the context of history. Reason, while potentially corrupting and contributing to our downfall in history, also provides the possibility of articulating a democratic political power to restore the equality that prevailed in the state of nature.

Humanity can redeem itself by building a history that moves closer to original equality. Rousseau's theodicy thus exonerates God but does not condemn humanity; it leaves open the possibility of genuine moral progress that allows us to save ourselves through our choices. Humanity is the author of moral evil, but it is within their power to minimize it to the point that it becomes almost irrelevant.