Exorcizing Demons: Thomas Hobbes and Balthasar Bekker on Spirits and Religion

Q4 Arts and Humanities
Alissa MacMillan
{"title":"Exorcizing Demons: Thomas Hobbes and Balthasar Bekker on Spirits and Religion","authors":"Alissa MacMillan","doi":"10.21825/philosophica.82126","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Thomas Hobbes devotes several chapters of Leviathan to a careful critique of belief in, and the uses and abuses of, demons, ghosts, and spirits. But his broader views on religion remain one of the more contested areas of his thought, leaving his role in the ‘Radical Enlightenment’ unclear. A thoroughgoing opposition to demons and ghosts was also one of the primary objectives of Dutch theologian Balthasar Bekker, a figure whose central role in the historical narrative on atheism is well defended and accounted for in Jonathan Israel’s Radical Enlightenment. Bekker was loudly declared an atheist of the worst sort, that is, of the Hobbesian or Spinozist sort. This paper engages an analysis and comparison of their respective treatments of demons and ghosts, elucidating several of the real differences in their views, and arguing that Hobbes’s critique of religion, one on the surface one quite similar in spirit to that of Bekker, is indeed the more ‘radical’ when considered in light of their distinctive epistemologies, arguments for God, and the main thrust of their projects. Alongside Bekker, the innovative elements of Hobbes’s critique of religion become especially clear.","PeriodicalId":36843,"journal":{"name":"Argumenta Philosophica","volume":"52 Spec Issue 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumenta Philosophica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21825/philosophica.82126","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Thomas Hobbes devotes several chapters of Leviathan to a careful critique of belief in, and the uses and abuses of, demons, ghosts, and spirits. But his broader views on religion remain one of the more contested areas of his thought, leaving his role in the ‘Radical Enlightenment’ unclear. A thoroughgoing opposition to demons and ghosts was also one of the primary objectives of Dutch theologian Balthasar Bekker, a figure whose central role in the historical narrative on atheism is well defended and accounted for in Jonathan Israel’s Radical Enlightenment. Bekker was loudly declared an atheist of the worst sort, that is, of the Hobbesian or Spinozist sort. This paper engages an analysis and comparison of their respective treatments of demons and ghosts, elucidating several of the real differences in their views, and arguing that Hobbes’s critique of religion, one on the surface one quite similar in spirit to that of Bekker, is indeed the more ‘radical’ when considered in light of their distinctive epistemologies, arguments for God, and the main thrust of their projects. Alongside Bekker, the innovative elements of Hobbes’s critique of religion become especially clear.
《驱魔:托马斯·霍布斯和巴尔萨萨·贝克论精神与宗教》
托马斯·霍布斯在《利维坦》中花了几章的篇幅,仔细批判了对恶魔、鬼魂和灵魂的信仰,以及对它们的使用和滥用。但他关于宗教的更广泛的观点仍然是他思想中更有争议的领域之一,这使得他在“激进启蒙运动”中的角色不明朗。彻底反对恶魔和鬼魂也是荷兰神学家巴尔萨萨·贝克(Balthasar Bekker)的主要目标之一,他在无神论历史叙事中的核心作用在乔纳森·伊斯雷尔(Jonathan Israel)的《激进启蒙运动》(Radical Enlightenment)一书中得到了很好的辩护和解释。贝克被大声宣布为最坏的一类无神论者,也就是霍布斯或斯宾诺莎一类的无神论者。本文对他们各自对待恶魔和鬼魂的方式进行了分析和比较,阐明了他们观点中的几个真正的差异,并认为霍布斯对宗教的批判,表面上与贝克的批判在精神上非常相似,当考虑到他们独特的认识论、对上帝的论证和他们项目的主要动力时,确实是更“激进”的。与贝克一起,霍布斯对宗教批判的创新元素变得尤为明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Argumenta Philosophica
Argumenta Philosophica Arts and Humanities-Visual Arts and Performing Arts
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信