Locke’s Idea of God: Rational Truth or Political Myth? William T. Bluhm; Neil Wintfeld; Stuart H. Teger The Journal of Politics, Volume 42, Issue 2 (May, 1980), 414-438. Stable URL: hutp//links jstor.org/sici?sict=0022. 1816%281980059%2042%3A2%3C414%3 ALIOGRT%3E2,0.CO%3B2-Q ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at hhup:/www.jstor org/about/terms.html. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the sereen or printed page of such transmission. ‘The Journal of Politics is published by Southern Political Science Association. Please contact the publisher for further permissions regarding the use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at hup:/www jstor.org/journals/spsa.himl, The Journal of Polities (©1980 Southern Political Seience Association ISTOR and the ISTOR logo are trademarks of ISTOR, and are Registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office For more information on ISTOR contact jstor-info@umich.edv, (©2003 JSTOR hupslwww jstor.org/ ‘Thu Feb 20 13:18:31 2003Locke’s Idea of God: Rational Truth or Political Myth? Wiuam T. Buunm Net. WINTFELD Stuarr H. TecER Tass now more than a quarter century since Leo Straus set forth his startling thesis that Locke did not repudiate the materialism and skepticism of Thomas Hobbes, but rather based his political theory fon an Hobbesian conception of human nature. Strauss’ thesis has been documented in an able book-length study by Richard Cox, and has been put into textbook doctrine by Robert A. Goldwin.'.” But the thesis has not received general acceptance. The bulk of scholar- ship on the political philosophy of John Locke since 1955 outspo- kenly repudiates it. Its authors have attempted to restore to general acceptability the idea that Locke's liberalism rests on a traditional view of human nature, conceived within a framework of divinely ‘mandated natural law.* * See Leo Straus, Natural Right and History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959), Ch. 5; Richard Cox, Locke on War and Peace (London: Oxford University Press, 1960): Robert A. Goldwin, “Locke,” in History of Political Philosophy, ed. Leo Strauss and Joseph Cropsey (2nd ed; Chicago: Rand McNally o,, 1979), # See, eg, Chatles E. H. Monson, Jr. “Locke and His Interpreters.” Political ‘Studies, 6 (February 1958), 120-133; John W. Yolton, “Locke on the Law of Nature,”LOCKE'S IDEA OF GoD 415 ‘Thus far, the debate has revolved around exegesis of the Second Treatise of Civil Government. But its result has been inconclusive. For neither side has addressed itself to the most fundamental ques- tion—whether one can take seriously Locke’s assertion that there is a God who has legislated, and continuously sanctions, a law of nature which requires sociable and forebearing behavior of human beings. Cox asserts that Locke was heterodox, probably Socinian in his religious opinions. Strauss and he agree that Locke broke with the Christian tradition in developing his concept of a “law of nature,” which they read as a code of self-preservation and enlightened in- terest. The Restorationists, by contrast, uniformly assume that Locke was a Christian believer, that he thought the existence of God. can be established by reason, and that the “law of nature” was to him a divinely sanctioned rule. Neither side effectively proves its ‘The chief purpose of this paper is to show that the Essay Concern- ing Human Understanding holds the key to the crucial question, for it is there that Locke describes how the mind develops a conception of God, and that he presents an apparent proof of God’s existence. We believe careful examination of these passages shows that Locke's heterodoxy went beyond Socinianism to complete skepticism, at least in the order of reason. We argue that he did not think it possi- ble to give a rational proof of the existence of God, and that he could The Philosophical Review, 51 (October 1958) 477-498; Raymond Poli, La Politique Morale de John Locke (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1960); Raghuveer Singh, “John Locke and the Theory of Natural Lae,” Political Studies, 9 (May 1961) 105-118; Mar- tin Seliger, “Locke's Natural Law and the Foundation of Politis,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 24 July-September 1963), 397-354 John Dunn, “Justice and the In- terpretaton of Locke's Political Theory,” Political Studies, 16 (February 1968), 68-87, Martin Seliger, The Liberal Politics of John Locke (New York: Pracger, 1968); Richard Ashcraft, “Locke's State of Nature: Historical Fact or Moral Fiction?” American Political Science Review, 62 (September 1968), 898-915; John Dunn, The Political Thought of John Locke (Cambridge: Cambeidge University Pres, 1969); Hans Aarslelf, “The State of Nature and the Nature of Man in Locke,” in John Locke: Problems and Perspctices, ed. John W. Yolton (London: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 9-138. CB. Macpherson’ treatment of Locke in is Political Theory of Possesie Indiidualiom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962), Ch V, iin clas by itself. I roer to these authors in subsequent pages as the “Restorations.” For a