Rousseau’s Natural Religion: The Role of Heartfelt Assent
1 – Easy Rule of Vicar (1-18)
Rousseau argues that a true believer understands man as an intelligent being requiring spiritual worship and a social being needing a morality made for humanity (para. 6). Teaching men to reason about religion, akin to emphasizing duties, removes the knife of intolerance. The solution lies in returning to general principles common to all humans, a universal religion established through dialogue among people of different faiths under these guidelines:
- Assembly to expel all theologians.
- Aim for conciliation.
- Debate based on what is useful to humans.
- Establish the most fitting doctrine.
Rousseau believes everyone would agree, forming a natural, universal religion that every human must admit. He approaches religion through the lens of natural religion.
This procedure differs from The Profession of Faith, where fundamental principles are discovered within, through the voice of conscience (para. 15). Philosophers are not needed to find articles of faith (see section Enlightenment and Rousseau). Let’s examine how the Vicar, from vital skepticism (7-10) and rejecting philosophers, finds his method.
Method: Criterion of the Heart – Sincere Assent
The method is based on the criterion of the heart: sincere assent. This follows a path somewhat similar to Descartes:
Profession of Faith is the discourse of a healthy reason that loves truth, following a Cartesian procedure. The first Cartesian rule is evidence (modeled on the mathematical method). Descartes seeks a strong, clear, and distinct truth to establish knowledge, using methodical doubt to discard anything doubtful and establish clear truths.
Rousseau, seeking evidence, imposes the following rule: “Support (knowledge) and all that is obvious, which, in the sincerity of my heart, I cannot deny consent. Consider real all that has a necessary connection with the first (deductions), and leave everything else in uncertainty, neither denying nor admitting, and not tormenting myself to clarify what cannot lead to anything useful for practice” (18). This implies limits to human knowledge and a focus on practical truths.
Differences from Descartes
- Evidence: Rousseau’s evidence is consent and inner conviction (18), not mathematical certainty like Descartes’ intellectual intuition. Rousseau’s consciousness and heart serve practical philosophy, unlike Descartes’ theoretical approach (18).
- Assent: Rousseau’s assent is varied, not the rigid certainty of Cartesian intuition (17).
- State of Doubt: Rousseau’s state before establishing the rule is not Descartes’ methodical doubt. Rousseau sees systematic skepticism as unnatural and distressing (7-10).
- Scope of Doubt: Descartes’ doubt is methodological, not subject to moral principles. Rousseau focuses on matters directly affecting us, especially moral issues, leaving aside speculative philosophy (15, 16, 18).
Rousseau advocates focusing on what interests us “immediately,” i.e., moral questions, and cultivating learned ignorance in other areas. This is determined by referring to consciousness, the inner light. Anything not clarified by this is set aside, avoiding pointless arguments. Rousseau rejects methods that don’t address what truly matters for morality and happiness.