Locke

I see Locke as a very responsible philosopher. While being a devout Christian and staunch supporter of a solid political system, he realized the danger in blindly subscribing to either. Trigg explains Locke’s observation of religion, that in its context, ‘men often appear most irrational, and more senseless than beasts themselves.’ What a sad, but true description of how religion can leave men. Locke would agree that reason and choice are essential elements to human being-ness, and even gifts from God. They are what separate us from all other animals. What is interesting, however, is that many other things that make us distinctly human are not objects of us not using this gift of reason. Locke wants tradition to fall under the scruples of reason. If no tradition were unreasonable, then there would be no incentive for us to double-check them; really think and ponder over whether or not they make any sense. Locke explains that God is reasonable, and that he would give neither religion nor tradition contrary to reason. And so, all things are subject to reason, even God.
I wonder what empiricists and agnostics would counter-argue to Locke’s inclusion of reason into religion. Even science requires what religious folk call a ‘leap of faith’ in order to truly subscribe to what the scientific method yields. The difference from faith is that science calls these leaps ‘assumptions.’ And without reasonable assumptions, the validity of the science goes away. Once a religious person makes the spiritual assumption that God exists, the rest of his or her claim to faith can be explained reasonably.