God speaks to dreamers?
Thomas Hobbes, in Chapter 32 of his famous
Leviathan,
wrote a passage which, while not as well known as the phrase "nasty, brutish,
and short," or "bellum omnium contra
omnes" (war of all against all), is somewhat
familiar to many students of
philosophy:
When God speaketh to man, it must be either immediately or by mediation of another man, to whom He had formerly spoken by Himself immediately. How God speaketh to a man immediately may be understood by those well enough to whom He hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another is hard, if not impossible, to know. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it.
He goes on, a bit
later:
This principle, that for a person to say that God has spoken to her/him in a dream amounts to the same thing as this person saying that she/he dreamed that God spoke to her/him, I shall call "Hobbes' principle." (Of course, he laid down quite a few more important principles, but this is the only one I will refer to in the present discussion.)
As he says in the first paragraph I quoted, the claim that one has received a divine revelation may be intelligible to that person, but anyone who doubts this claim cannot be persuaded by anything which we would ordinarily call an "argument." In the second quoted paragraph, he presents an argument of his own to support this view of the non-provability (shall we say) of revelation: divine revelation (God speaking "immediately" to a person) is comparable to a dream. Just as we can only take Jack's word for it that he dreamed last night that he climbed a hill with Jill, we can only take his word for it if he says that God revealed to him last night that the world will end tomorrow. Usually, we don't doubt reports of dreams -- at least, ordinary ones about climbing hills with a friend, etc. -- but we might be inclined to be a bit skeptical about revelations about the end of the world. At least some of us might well be. So, in Hobbes' view, anyone who claims to be announcing a private revelation will have a very hard time quashing the objections of someone not inclined to believe him or her.
It is no wonder, I suppose, that a writer who was given to such thoughts, in the 17th century, would be branded an "atheist" by his contemporaries, and indeed Hobbes was. But the passage I quoted above is in the third part of Leviathan, which is titled "Of a Christian Commonwealth," in a chapter titled "Of the Principles of Christian Politics." So if he were alive today in the U.S., one might expect him to be on the side of the rabid Christian Right. On the other hand, he does seem very skeptical of the whole idea of revelation, which this Christian Right certainly prizes highly. How can this apparent anomaly be explained, and what might this explanation tell us about the current arguments over religion, politics, judges, persistent vegetative states, and feeding tubes?
The rest of his argument, as is only fitting (considering that he is expounding on a Christian commonwealth and Christian politics), is based primarily on Biblical quotations. In sum, he argues that the principles of Christian politics need to be drawn from the Bible and the utterances of prophets. But prophets contradict each other; how can we tell which ones are the true prophets?
That is, as he proceeds to explain, a true prophecy needs to be distinguished by a prediction of a future event that could not have been derived from human knowledge, but only from God's.
And he adds that this prophecy must turn out to be true fairly promptly:
But these miracles alone are not enough to distinguish true from false prophets, since true prophets must not teach anything that contradicts the established religion or foments revolution:
Finally, he notes that there are no miracles these days; they all happened in Biblical times. So:
Let's try to translate all this into more contemporary terms.
In the first two parts of Leviathan, Hobbes argued for a strictly materialist, scientific world view. Though of course he accepted that God existed, he thought of him as a kind of infinite body about which we could know nothing except that he was the ultimate creator and cause of everything in the world and that his teachings are contained in the Bible. But how do we know that? Purely by belief or faith:
In other words, Hobbes holds that we can know by using reason that a creator of the universe exists (here he relies basically on the traditional "first cause" arguments, going back through Aquinas to Aristotle), but nothing more. Everything else about God and his teachings we (and by we he means the community of Christians) take on faith.
Comparing his thoughts, overall, with the European culture of his times, we could say roughly that he combined an enthusiasm for the new science then just arising from Copernicus, Galileo, and the like with a Protestant, especially Calvinist, version of Christianity. It would be difficult to say exactly how he would orient himself in our world, nearly 400 years later. But I think that certain broad conclusions are possible.
He would no doubt agree with much of what the Christian Right argues today, though he would be much more skeptical than most of them. (It's hard to say what he would think about evolutionary theory, but given his generally materialist world view and support of the science of his time, I think he would probably accept it.) Most importantly, though, he would, in my view, frankly admit that his writings about a "Christian commonwealth" could only apply to a country which was in fact entirely a Christian community. This is because his whole argument on this subject starts with the assumption that the community accepts one book, the Christian bible, as the source of its religious beliefs, and has no way of replying to anyone who challenges those beliefs except to say: "Just believe." And I incline to think that he would be realistic enough to accept that American society is a very pluralistic one, which includes non-Christians as well as many varieties of Christians.
In such a society (which he would not have had any experience of four centuries ago, though there were conflicts between Catholics and several denominations of Protestants), he would need to discard the third and fourth parts of Leviathan and fall back on the arguments of the first two parts, in which the sole justification of government authority is its mission to keep peace in the society. I would think that his position for the country as a whole would end up closest to what we know as secular libertarians.
On the other hand, considering his insistence that "true prophets" must not teach any doctrines which contradict the religion which is "already established" or which "tend to stir up revolt against the king," and that he quotes Deuteronomy insisting that any "dreamer of dreams" that calls on the flock to "follow strange gods, which thou hast not known" should be put to death, he would appear to be even more of a harsh reactionary in his religious views than the pious Americans of today, who to my knowledge have not yet formally issued any such fatwas. (Though some folks have interpreted certain recent ambiguous speeches by Congresspersons as attempts to stir up judge-killers.)
I must admit, in sum, that it is very hard to fit Hobbes exactly into the context of the United States in 2005, but trying to accomplish this gives us much to think about, and may help to clarify some of the arguments swirling around our heads today. I would strongly recommend that folks spend some more time studying this subject. To mention a few Web resources, the complete text of Leviathan can be found on several sites, most conveniently, perhaps, here. Good general overviews of his thought can be seen at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
For to say that God hath spoken to him in the Holy Scripture is not to say God hath spoken to him immediately, but by mediation of the prophets, or of the Apostles, or of the Church, in such manner as He speaks to all other Christian men.To say He hath spoken to him in a dream is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him ; which is not of force to win belief from any man that knows dreams are for the most part natural, and may proceed from former thoughts; and such dreams as that, from self-conceit, and foolish arrogance, and false opinion of a man's own goodliness, or virtue, by which he thinks he hath merited the favour of extraordinary revelation.
This principle, that for a person to say that God has spoken to her/him in a dream amounts to the same thing as this person saying that she/he dreamed that God spoke to her/him, I shall call "Hobbes' principle." (Of course, he laid down quite a few more important principles, but this is the only one I will refer to in the present discussion.)
As he says in the first paragraph I quoted, the claim that one has received a divine revelation may be intelligible to that person, but anyone who doubts this claim cannot be persuaded by anything which we would ordinarily call an "argument." In the second quoted paragraph, he presents an argument of his own to support this view of the non-provability (shall we say) of revelation: divine revelation (God speaking "immediately" to a person) is comparable to a dream. Just as we can only take Jack's word for it that he dreamed last night that he climbed a hill with Jill, we can only take his word for it if he says that God revealed to him last night that the world will end tomorrow. Usually, we don't doubt reports of dreams -- at least, ordinary ones about climbing hills with a friend, etc. -- but we might be inclined to be a bit skeptical about revelations about the end of the world. At least some of us might well be. So, in Hobbes' view, anyone who claims to be announcing a private revelation will have a very hard time quashing the objections of someone not inclined to believe him or her.
It is no wonder, I suppose, that a writer who was given to such thoughts, in the 17th century, would be branded an "atheist" by his contemporaries, and indeed Hobbes was. But the passage I quoted above is in the third part of Leviathan, which is titled "Of a Christian Commonwealth," in a chapter titled "Of the Principles of Christian Politics." So if he were alive today in the U.S., one might expect him to be on the side of the rabid Christian Right. On the other hand, he does seem very skeptical of the whole idea of revelation, which this Christian Right certainly prizes highly. How can this apparent anomaly be explained, and what might this explanation tell us about the current arguments over religion, politics, judges, persistent vegetative states, and feeding tubes?
The rest of his argument, as is only fitting (considering that he is expounding on a Christian commonwealth and Christian politics), is based primarily on Biblical quotations. In sum, he argues that the principles of Christian politics need to be drawn from the Bible and the utterances of prophets. But prophets contradict each other; how can we tell which ones are the true prophets?
If one prophet deceive another, what certainty is there of knowing the will of God by other way than that of reason? To which I answer out of the Holy Scripture that there be two marks by which together, not asunder, a true prophet is to be known. One is the doing of miracles; the other is the not teaching any other religion than that which is already established.
That is, as he proceeds to explain, a true prophecy needs to be distinguished by a prediction of a future event that could not have been derived from human knowledge, but only from God's.
For if a man that teacheth not false doctrine should pretend to be a prophet without showing any miracle, he is never the more to be regarded for his pretence, as is evident by Deuteronomy, 18. 21, 22: "If thou say in thy heart, How shall we know that the word" (of the prophet) "is not that which the Lord hath spoken? When the prophet shall have spoken in the name of the Lord, that which shall not come to pass, that is the word which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet has spoken it out of the pride of his own heart, fear him not."
And he adds that this prophecy must turn out to be true fairly promptly:
But a man may here again ask: When the prophet hath foretold a thing, how shall we know whether it will come to pass or not? For he may foretell it as a thing to arrive after a certain long time, longer than the time of man's life; or indefinitely, that it will come to pass one time or other: in which case this mark of a prophet is unuseful; and therefore the miracles that oblige us to believe a prophet ought to be confirmed by an immediate, or a not long deferred event.
But these miracles alone are not enough to distinguish true from false prophets, since true prophets must not teach anything that contradicts the established religion or foments revolution:
If one prophet deceive another, what certainty is there of knowing the will of God by other way than that of reason? To which I answer out of the Holy Scripture that there be two marks by which together, not asunder, a true prophet is to be known. One is the doing of miracles; the other is the not teaching any other religion than that which is already established. Asunder, I say, neither of these is sufficient. "If a prophet rise amongst you, or a dreamer of dreams, and shall pretend the doing of a miracle, and the miracle come to pass; if he say, Let us follow strange gods, which thou hast not known, thou shalt not hearken to him, etc. But that prophet and dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to you to revolt from the Lord your God." [Deuteronomy, 13. 1-5] In which words two things are to be observed; first, that God will not have miracles alone serve for arguments to approve the prophet's calling; but (as it is in the third verse) for an experiment of the constancy of our adherence to Himself. For the works of the Egyptian sorcerers, though not so great as those of Moses, yet were great miracles. Secondly, that how great soever the miracle be, yet if it tend to stir up revolt against the king or him that governeth by the king's authority, he that doth such miracle is not to be considered otherwise than as sent to make trial of their allegiance.
Finally, he notes that there are no miracles these days; they all happened in Biblical times. So:
Seeing therefore miracles now cease, we have no sign left whereby to acknowledge the pretended revelations or inspirations of any private man; nor obligation to give ear to any doctrine, farther than it is conformable to the Holy Scriptures, which since the time of our Saviour supply the place and sufficiently recompense the want of all other prophecy; and from which, by wise and learned interpretation, and careful ratiocination, all rules and precepts necessary to the knowledge of our duty both to God and man, without enthusiasm, or supernatural inspiration, may easily be deduced.
Let's try to translate all this into more contemporary terms.
In the first two parts of Leviathan, Hobbes argued for a strictly materialist, scientific world view. Though of course he accepted that God existed, he thought of him as a kind of infinite body about which we could know nothing except that he was the ultimate creator and cause of everything in the world and that his teachings are contained in the Bible. But how do we know that? Purely by belief or faith:
And consequently, when we believe that the Scriptures are the word of God, having no immediate revelation from God Himself, our belief, faith, and trust is in the Church; whose word we take, and acquiesce therein. (Leviathan, Chapter 7)
In other words, Hobbes holds that we can know by using reason that a creator of the universe exists (here he relies basically on the traditional "first cause" arguments, going back through Aquinas to Aristotle), but nothing more. Everything else about God and his teachings we (and by we he means the community of Christians) take on faith.
Comparing his thoughts, overall, with the European culture of his times, we could say roughly that he combined an enthusiasm for the new science then just arising from Copernicus, Galileo, and the like with a Protestant, especially Calvinist, version of Christianity. It would be difficult to say exactly how he would orient himself in our world, nearly 400 years later. But I think that certain broad conclusions are possible.
He would no doubt agree with much of what the Christian Right argues today, though he would be much more skeptical than most of them. (It's hard to say what he would think about evolutionary theory, but given his generally materialist world view and support of the science of his time, I think he would probably accept it.) Most importantly, though, he would, in my view, frankly admit that his writings about a "Christian commonwealth" could only apply to a country which was in fact entirely a Christian community. This is because his whole argument on this subject starts with the assumption that the community accepts one book, the Christian bible, as the source of its religious beliefs, and has no way of replying to anyone who challenges those beliefs except to say: "Just believe." And I incline to think that he would be realistic enough to accept that American society is a very pluralistic one, which includes non-Christians as well as many varieties of Christians.
In such a society (which he would not have had any experience of four centuries ago, though there were conflicts between Catholics and several denominations of Protestants), he would need to discard the third and fourth parts of Leviathan and fall back on the arguments of the first two parts, in which the sole justification of government authority is its mission to keep peace in the society. I would think that his position for the country as a whole would end up closest to what we know as secular libertarians.
On the other hand, considering his insistence that "true prophets" must not teach any doctrines which contradict the religion which is "already established" or which "tend to stir up revolt against the king," and that he quotes Deuteronomy insisting that any "dreamer of dreams" that calls on the flock to "follow strange gods, which thou hast not known" should be put to death, he would appear to be even more of a harsh reactionary in his religious views than the pious Americans of today, who to my knowledge have not yet formally issued any such fatwas. (Though some folks have interpreted certain recent ambiguous speeches by Congresspersons as attempts to stir up judge-killers.)
I must admit, in sum, that it is very hard to fit Hobbes exactly into the context of the United States in 2005, but trying to accomplish this gives us much to think about, and may help to clarify some of the arguments swirling around our heads today. I would strongly recommend that folks spend some more time studying this subject. To mention a few Web resources, the complete text of Leviathan can be found on several sites, most conveniently, perhaps, here. Good general overviews of his thought can be seen at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Posted: Sat - April 16, 2005 at 06:28 PM | |
Quick Links
SITE UNDER CONSTRUCTION!
(while I bone up on html and css)
(while I bone up on html and css)
Categories
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Comments powered by
Archives
Truth Laid Bear
Technorati
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Dec 09, 2005 10:19 PM
