Scottish Enlightenment

Scottish Enlightenment

Right	Section	Contents
Freedom of Religion	Philosophical Origins	Adam Smith, one of the leading thinkers of the Scottish Enlightenment, was personally very critical of religion. “He was deeply critical of Christianity and Judaism, both because of the discriminatory views of his era, and because of his own observation of hypocrisy within Protestantism.” (Ward 43, 2004). He did however have a background of mentors who dabbled with theology. Professor Gershom Carmichael had a rational and empirical approach to religion, he was not a part of the “enthusiastic” movements that were popular in Scotland at the time. Professor Carmichael was a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow and was the mentor of Francis Hutcheson, who became the mentor of Adam Smith (Ward 49, 2004). Francis Hutcheson argued that the reality of God could be discovered through natural theology and led an educational reform in Scotland. He taught courses in English rather than Latin , he led the University of Glasgow away from Calvinism and instead used a scientific approach to study religion, God, and morality (Ward 49, 2004). Adam Smith would eventually inherit Hutcheson’s post at the University of Glasgow and was expected to lecture on theology. While this sounds like a great place to learn about what Smith thought about theology, “at the time of his death, Smith ordered the destruction of any of his writings that, he felt, failed to offer a unique contribution to human knowledge and understanding. The fact that there is no trace of his materials on natural theology would seem to suggest that, for Smith, they were without great significance. (Ward 50, 2004). Adam Smith’s personal religious views are left to interpretation; his approach to religion is approached very scientifically. Smith was not the only Scottish Enlightenment figure will this approach to religion; “figures such as David Hume, Francis Hutcheson, and Smith seem to have resisted all established religion. They were fascinated by the scientific insights of figures such as Issac Newton and Kepler.” (Ward 49, 2004). Adam Smith’s personal relationship with religion doesn’t mean that he avoided discussing it in his published works. In The Wealth of Nations, Smith critiques state-supported religious monopolies, especially those that must use force to enforce their monopoly. (Griswold 396, 1997). “When the authorized teachers of religion propagate through the great body of the people, doctrines subversive of the authority of the sovereign, it is by violence only, or by the force of a standing army, that he can maintain his authority.” (Smith 651, 1776). So, to avoid this violence, states should refrain from forcing their religious monopolies on the people. “Smith has argued that the causes of violence in connection with religion are (i) the perception by the dominant religion that assistance from the state (in the form of police powers) is available to increase the size of its flock, with all the corresponding temporal benefits; and (ii) the feelings of resentment on the part of the persecuted religions” (Griswold 409, 1997). Following this, he believes that “such a clergy, when attacked by a set of popular and bold, though perhaps stupid and ignorant enthusiasts, feel themselves as perfectly defenseless as the indolent, effeminate, and full fed nations of the southern parts of Asia, when they were invaded by the active, hardy, and hungry Tartars of the north. Such a clergy, upon such an emergency, have commonly no other resource than to call upon the civil magistrate to persecute, destroy, or drive out their adversaries, as disturbers of the public peace.” (Smith 643, 1776). The Wealth of Nations is about, well, how nations should build their wealth. His analysis of religion in this book should be taken as his advice on how to achieve a civil society. Smith goes on to suggest that states should focus their education on science rather than religion so that people would be “less tempted to explain puzzling natural phenomena in religious terms.” (Griswold 411, 1997). Adam Smith’s view is that the state should embrace free markets, an idea analyzed in detail in The Wealth of Nations. This leads to his general goal of creating a stable government and economy (Ward 45, 2009). While he himself doesn’t advocate religion and instead advocates science , he recognizes some areas of freedom of religion that he incorporates into Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations. He supports separation of church and state, allowing liberty of religious belief, and creating a free market of religions (Griswold 411, 1997). In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argues “In a country where the law favored the teachers of no one religion more than those of another, it would not be necessary that any of them should have any particular or immediate dependency upon the sovereign or executive power; or that he should have anything to do either in appointing or in dismissing them from their offices.” (Smith 650, 1776). Here, Smith is arguing for separation of church and state; he further argues that by allowing freedom of religion and creating a large market of religions, it will reduce the competition between different religions and improve their relationships with the state. “The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which are so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects, whose tenets, being supported by the civil magistrate, are held in veneration by almost all the inhabitants of extensive kingdoms and empires, and who, therefore, see nothing round them but followers, disciples, and humble admirers. The teachers of each little sect, finding themselves almost alone, would be obliged to respect those of almost every other sect; and the concession which they would mutually find in both convenient and agreeable to make one to another, might in time, probably reduce the doctrine of the greater part of them to that pure and rational religion, free from every mixture of absurdity, imposture, or fanaticism, such as wise men have, in all ages of the world, wished to see established…” (Smith 647, 1776). He did, however, not believe that these ideals could be achieved on their own. Smith argued that a liberal education in science was required to support these ideals. (Griswold 411, 1997). “Science is the great antidote to the poison of enthusiasm and superstition; and where all the superior ranks of people were secured from it, the inferior ranks could not be much exposed to it” (Smith 650, 1779) Adam Smith is not the only Scottish Enlightenment figure to speak about religion; David Hume had his own opinions on religion. In his essay Of Superstition and Enthusiasm, he argues “that superstition is an enemy to civil liberty, and enthusiasm a friend to it. As superstition groans under the dominion of priests, and enthusiasm is destructive of all ecclesiastical power, this sufficiently accounts for the present observation.” (Hume 1758). He explains that in England’s civil wars, the whigs were friends to toleration, and it was their tolerating spirit that helped to reconcile the differences between the competing Roman Catholics and other Christians. The “tolerating spirit” Hume is referring to here, can be interpreted as religious freedom. As stated earlier, Scottish Enlightenment figures tend to be highly critical of religion and tend to speak to religion in the context of creating a more civil society (Ward 49, 2004). With this context, I can hypothesize that Adam Smith supported the ideals of freedom of religion. Separation of church and state, liberty of religious belief, and a free market of religions sounds very similar to the freedom of religion in the United States. Adam Smith’s works were very influential on the founding fathers when it came to designing our government (Smith 2004). “The Wealth of Nations was also read and discussed by those in America seeking to form a new government based on preserving “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and an economic system that could assure America of prosperity and self-sufficiency” (Smith 9, 2004). After reading through many sections of The Wealth of Nations, it is evident that the founding fathers took some examples from it about how to build and maintain a free-market economy. Knowing that they were already taking advice from Adam Smith and other Scottish Enlightenment figures about the economy and governance, it is within reason that the founding fathers took the advice of the Scottish Enlightenment figures about the relationship between church and state to ensure a civil society. By allowing freedom of religion, it should reduce competition between religions and frees the government from being stuck supporting the state-supported religion. Smith himself said that wise men wished to see these ideals established in governments, and the brand new government of the United States gave the founding fathers the opportunity to test these ideals. References: Griswold, Charles L. “Religion and Community: Adam Smith on the Virtues of Liberty.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 35, no. 3 (1997): 395–419. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/225729. Hume, David. Essays Moral, Political, Literary. Edited by Eugene F. Miller. 1758. Reprint, Liberty Fund Inc., 1987. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/hume-essays-moral-political-literary-lf-ed. Smith, Adam. AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS. Edited by Jim Manis. Penn State Electronic Classics Series. 1776. Reprint, The Pennsylvania State University, 2005. https://www.rrojasdatabank.info/Wealth-Nations.pdf. Smith, Roy C. Adam Smith and the Origins of American Enterprise: How the Founding Fathers Turned to a Great Economist’s Writings and Created the American Economy. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2004. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Adam_Smith_and_the_Origins_of_American_E/-CIHI4m578sC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=adam+smith+and+the+founding+fathers&pg=PR9&printsec=frontcover. Ward, Thomas J. “Adam Smith’s Views on Religion and Social Justice.” International Journal on World Peace 21, no. 2 (2004): 43–62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20753440.