"Bayle" by Elisabeth Labrousse: A Review
This is one of the Oxford Past Master series, in which Elisabeth Labrousse explores the life and works of the Frenchman Pierre Bayle. Bayle (1647-1706) was a Calvinist, and therefore, in Catholic France of that time, a heretic. His early life was spent teaching in France but, in 1681, in the face of mounting religious persecution, he left his native land, and went to live in Rotterdam; it was good timing, for in only a short while, the last vestiges of religious toleration were ended in France, with the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685). It was in exile that Bayle came to prominence, as a writer and philosopher, who, in many respects, anticipated the thinkers of the enlightenment.
An interesting area of Bayle's thought is what his critics termed his "paradoxes". One of these is the assertion "that atheists are not a social menace, and that a society composed only of atheists would be perfectly viable." Here, an atheist refers to a person who holds that religious beliefs are false, and therefore the moral values related to those beliefs can have no validity. So it would seem that such atheists would undermine society. Against this, Bayle argues that people are, in general, motivated in their conduct by "self-love", by behaving out of concern for reputation and out of fear of punishment; they only pay "lip service" to their beliefs. The result is that people are kept in check by moral principles regardless of their motivation, which may be devoid of moral and religious significance. The idea that good actions must be motivated by underlying moral values is, therefore, false. Moreover, even where such moral values exist, they are no guarantee of virtuous behaviour, as can readily be confirmed by observation. As Bayle comments: "It is no more strange that an atheist should lead a virtuous life, than a Christian should commit any kind of crime."
In his paradox about a society of atheists, Bayle is also arguing for toleration. He cleverly defends toleration for his beliefs with a more general argument, for if atheists are not to be feared by the state, then still less are heretics. It is clear that his thinking on this matter arose out of his historical situation. Elisabeth Labrousse shows how everything Bayle wrote can be seen as a response to the religious intolerance of his times. While this helps us to understand Bayle's thinking, his arguments should be assessed on the basis of their merits, and not their genesis.
It seems odd that people can believe one thing, and cheerfully practice something quite different, while remaining unconcerned by the fact that there is a glaring contradiction between belief and practice.
But it is not difficult to find many examples of this kind of hypocrisy. For example, a convinced atheist may be a practicing freemason, although the tenets of freemasonry demand a measure of religious belief. Another example is the concern of a young couple to have their child baptised into the Christian faith, although they actually do not believe it to be true.
Bayle helps us to understand how people live with such contradictions. These cases highlight the impotence of belief; they illustrate Bayle's argument that where belief contradicts natural inclinations, we conduct ourselves by our inclinations, rather than our belief. This is a book full of many insights and arguments which deserve to be carefully pondered.
An interesting area of Bayle's thought is what his critics termed his "paradoxes". One of these is the assertion "that atheists are not a social menace, and that a society composed only of atheists would be perfectly viable." Here, an atheist refers to a person who holds that religious beliefs are false, and therefore the moral values related to those beliefs can have no validity. So it would seem that such atheists would undermine society. Against this, Bayle argues that people are, in general, motivated in their conduct by "self-love", by behaving out of concern for reputation and out of fear of punishment; they only pay "lip service" to their beliefs. The result is that people are kept in check by moral principles regardless of their motivation, which may be devoid of moral and religious significance. The idea that good actions must be motivated by underlying moral values is, therefore, false. Moreover, even where such moral values exist, they are no guarantee of virtuous behaviour, as can readily be confirmed by observation. As Bayle comments: "It is no more strange that an atheist should lead a virtuous life, than a Christian should commit any kind of crime."
In his paradox about a society of atheists, Bayle is also arguing for toleration. He cleverly defends toleration for his beliefs with a more general argument, for if atheists are not to be feared by the state, then still less are heretics. It is clear that his thinking on this matter arose out of his historical situation. Elisabeth Labrousse shows how everything Bayle wrote can be seen as a response to the religious intolerance of his times. While this helps us to understand Bayle's thinking, his arguments should be assessed on the basis of their merits, and not their genesis.
It seems odd that people can believe one thing, and cheerfully practice something quite different, while remaining unconcerned by the fact that there is a glaring contradiction between belief and practice.
But it is not difficult to find many examples of this kind of hypocrisy. For example, a convinced atheist may be a practicing freemason, although the tenets of freemasonry demand a measure of religious belief. Another example is the concern of a young couple to have their child baptised into the Christian faith, although they actually do not believe it to be true.
Bayle helps us to understand how people live with such contradictions. These cases highlight the impotence of belief; they illustrate Bayle's argument that where belief contradicts natural inclinations, we conduct ourselves by our inclinations, rather than our belief. This is a book full of many insights and arguments which deserve to be carefully pondered.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment