A VISION FOR REASON John Locke; Daniel Defoe; Thomas Paine, and Declaration of Rights of Men
Shelley has good reason to say that the people react against religious rites of the majority when it becomes “religion” and they close their eyes for any reason.
I would rather support the reasonable reason of the philosophers who reacted against the church’s traditions. They were at least seeking good reasons to believe. They struggled for the evidences and attempted to relate then “our practice and the records of the Bible”. And that is better than to close minds and follow whatever comes as teaching of the church leaders and teachers. Up to the point, that as long as they were accepting the existence of the God of universe, they were not gone totally wrong. The philosophers like Voltaire became much unsympathetic towards church as the result of callous treatment against them. The age of reasoning, as I consider, is not accidentally thrown upon the Church, but was developing urge against the role and teaching of the religious leaders.
Another weakness in the church is women and their status in Christian society. I wonder how the church leadership until 17th century was not considering of lifting their spouses and other females who are equally God’s worshippers with them. They were still holding the most barbarous customs in the world, though they considered themselves as a civilized and the citizens of the Christendom. They denied teaching their females, and they shut their doors for the advantages of learning to women. One may question them if their ladies were only the machines to be used for their enjoyment and fulfill the necessity of reproduction. Thus the prominence writers like Defoe were absolutely on time to stir the suppressed voices in the hearts of the woman and other good people of that time. But in the path of moving towards a goal, there will not be always the downward slope. Talking the reasoning, while the secular philosophers for their reaction against the gigantic laws of the church leaders, and their progressive philosophy, they were not able to see any reasonable reason to believe in God, something needed to answer them in a caring manner. Indeed, “The religious prejudice seemed like a far greater danger than atheism.” (Shelley, p313). I believe, John Locke was that answer for the seeker of the reasons. He made clear statement and provide a series of apologetic reasons why a Christian believe in God. He argued in sadness to see the so called philosophers who gave a little of their reason that they saw God, the absolute Deity that is sufficient to understand and believe even seeing the nature of life. They were going with false assumptions that had blinded them. And their attempts brought the world in a stage that it had almost lost the sight of the One and only True God. As John Locke says, “The rational and thinking part of mankind, ’tis true, when they sought after Him, found the One, Supreme, invisible God: but if they acknowledged and worshipped Him, it was only in their own minds.” He concluded the sought of the reasons that it was just a insensitive reaction towards superstitious aspect of practices in the Church.
Was not that the Deism born as consequence of the two arguing parties who take sides to prove their rationales? One gave its thorough statement that it would not believe that there is a God whom to be worshiped. The followers of this party attacked at the foundations of Christian faith, and on the other hand, profound trusties like John Locke stood with firm and reasonable belief that it was rational that believing in Jesus as Messiah and man’s only ethical standard and apostles’ requirement for the righteousness. It seems that as the third balancing party came out as Deism, which did not denied Christ totally, but enforced the argument that the Christianity was failed in her social validity.
Republished in new layout 6/11/2013
Discussion about this post