John Locke and Religious Fundamentalism

[Originally published on a weblog called “What Is Liberalism?”]

Written by Phillip Honenberger

In a conversation with Lawrence a few months ago, it dawned on me that the world-wide enemy of liberalism today might easily be identified as fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism (we are often reminded) appears to have been a strong motivation for the re-election of Mr. Bush, and Islamic fundamentalism (we are often told) is at the root of the politically-oppressive regimes in the Middle East, as well as the motivation of Islamic terrorist groups such as Al-Queda. Something like Isreali fundamentalism also appears to be at the heart of Isreal’s claims to authority in the Isreal-Palestine conflict.

In a sense, fundamentalism is just another kind of totalitarianism. It seems, at least, to generate similar political structures and behaviors. But perhaps the broader problem is actually still totalitarianism or authoritarianism. (Cf. Russia, China, and whatever non-religious but still violent, oppressive and imperial behavior characterizes the contemporary international activities of the USA).

If the thesis about fundamentalism is at least partially true, however, it spells great opportunity for the liberal project since (a) most fundamentalists don’t have any political project in common [there are Hindu fundamentalists, Muslim fundamentalists, Jewish fundamentalists, and Christian fundamentalists, each of them opposed to one another in principle], and (b) most liberals across the world share a common political project and a common political heritage. Quite simply, fundamentalists have contradictory foundations. Liberals, however, have a unified foundation which stretches from the British Civil War to 20th century democratic theory, liberal economic theory, anarchism, socialism, and various strains of Marxisms. Obviously there are contradictions within this heritage, but the contradictions pale in comparison to the set of those who claim a “divine destiny” for their nation, ethnic group, or religious creed. The general principle of liberal theory is that individual freedom ought to be made universal… in other words, every individual in the world ought to be free from external compulsion. What freedom from compulsion means (for instance: whether it is freedom from the “compulsion of the market” [Marxism] or freedom to “buy and sell” [Economic liberalism]) is still a matter of dispute, of course… but perhaps we liberals today also have a sense of the necessary push-and-pull of this dialectic. Perhaps we are becoming inclined to unite against the most serious enemies of the liberal project. Perhpas we are more inclined than are the fundamentalists to compromise our most cherished intra-liberal platforms from time to time in order to maintain peace and to maximize freedom as a universal characteristic of human life on earth.

In a future post, I hope to put forward some suggestions for dealing with this particular world-wide enemy of the liberal project. In particular, I hope to draw on a few of the old classical liberal arguments against “enthusiasm.” The core error in fundamentalism, it seems, is easily demonstrated through analysis of the psychology that motivates it. It is not based on a will-to-truth but rather on a will-to-believe. The fundamentalist’s appeal to religious revelation, however, cannot have any authority over what the classical theorists called “reason.” John Locke, in the chapter “Of Enthusiasm” in his “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding” put it thus:

“What I see, I know to be so by the evidence of the thing itself; what I believe, I take to be so upon the testimony of another: but this testimony I must know to be given, or else what ground have I of believing? I must see that it is God that reveals this to me, or else I see nothing. The question then here is, How do I know that God is the revealer of this to me; that this impression is made upon my mind by his Holy Spirit, and that therefore I ought to obey it? If I know not this, hopw great soever the assurance is that I am possessed with, it is groundless; whatever light I pretend to, it is but enthusiasm… For if I mistake not, these men receive it for true because they presume God revealed it. Does it not then stand them upon to examine upon what grounds they presume it to be a revelation from God?”

I have often found an argument of this kind to be effective against Christian fundamentalism. The question is: How do you know that the Bible is divinely inspired (or the only divinely inspired book in the world, etc.)? In other words, I demand that the fundamentalist Christian give me reasons for their *specific* (and in my humble opinion deeply idolotrous) beliefs about God, and deny them the right to cite Biblical passages without first proving to me (and to themselves?) that they really have the go-ahead from God Himself in taking the Bible as God’s truth.

By taking our side with reason rather than enthusiam, we liberals have a powerful tool for gaining the ideological upper hand on fundamentalism.