Reading old books is interesting for many reasons, but one of my favourites is seeing how people viewed religion before atheism became mainstream. I remember reading Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which argues that the population always has the power of growing faster than the increase in the food supply, meaning that hunger would always be knocking at humanity’s door. The green revolution (which massively increased agricultural productivity) and contraception have kind of taken the sheen off his theory, but the book is still worth reading.

 

However, it is his views on why this situation is the case that is so startling. According to Malthus, God intentionally makes it hard for humans to have enough to eat so that they won’t be lazy and stupid. Since God makes it hard to have enough food, it forces us to use our minds and work ethic to overcome our hardship: “Had population and food increased in the same ratio, it is probable that man might never have emerged from the savage state”. And, “Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity”.

 

To me, this is just so shockingly contrived that, when I read it for the first time, I wrote in the margin, “Is he serious?” and, later, “Youch!” Published in 1798, I suppose it was taken as fact that God exists and God is good, so Malthus had to find a way to explain why the world would be so cruel. So he surmised: God is clever! Much as cartoon characters dangle a carrot just out of reach of the horse’s mouth to get it to move forward, so God contrives a similar situation for us, keeping satisfaction perpetually just out of reach.

 

In cases like this, it is easy to conclude that the author is out of touch with reality. But it is not always so easy to dismiss religion in other cases. Tocqueville’s reflections on religion in Democracy in America is one of those cases. Here is one quote that challenges me: “Religion, then, is simply another form of hope; and it is no less natural to the human heart than hope itself. Men cannot abandon their religious faith without a kind of aberration of intellect, and a sort of violent distortion of their true natures; but they are invincibly brought back to more pious sentiments; for unbelief is an accident, and faith is the only permanent state of mankind (p. 357)”.

 

Now, the interesting thing about this is that he’s not necessarily saying that God exists or that religion is true (even though I think he is a believer), just that humans are naturally religious. Just as it is in our nature to have hope for the future, he is suggesting, it is in our nature to be religious. So if a society is created, like ours today, in which many are atheistic and religion is seen as an aberration, it would be like a society in which people no longer had hope and society didn’t believe in a future for itself. We would be resisting the inevitable. Furthermore, I’m not sure exactly what he means when he says we cannot abandon religious faith “without a kind of aberration of intellect,” but he seems to imply that you would need to compromise your intellect in order to be an atheist, whereas an atheist today believes that about religious people.

 

In any case, the disconcerting thing for us, politically, is that Tocqueville argues that the piety of the people ought to increase in proportion as their freedom to act as they will, politically, increases. That is, the freer a people is politically, the more important it is that they believe in God. Speaking of his home country of France, which tried to eradicate religion during the Revolution, Tocqueville says: “Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy they attack; and it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity (p. 355)”?

 

‘How is it possible that society should escape destruction?’ That is strong language. What would Tocqueville think if he came to study Canada today? Would he be incredibly worried for us that we are so free politically while being so less religious than the Americans were in 1830? Would he claim that we are still more religious than we think we are and that is why we haven’t come to destruction yet? Has Tocqueville’s claim about the need for piety in free societies been disproved by time, just as Malthus’ concerns about perpetual hunger were? Or, is this period in history just a blip that will soon vanish as people turn back towards religion, just as Malthus may ultimately be proved correct when our ability to increase agricultural productivity falters and hunger stalks every country once more? These are interesting questions to consider.

 

Regardless, Tocqueville makes some further sound observations about religion. He argues that it is wise to separate Church from State, but not for the usual reasons. He argues that religion is actually stronger when separated from the State, or, at least, it has a more wide-ranging impact on the people. When married to the State, religion is marred by the actions of the government. If the government does something that displeases the people, the people can come to see religion as part of the problem. When religion plays no part in the State, then it is able to stay clean and free from political passions. The people respect religion more and are more faithful. Consequently, as pious citizens, they are more likely to be modest and prudent. Religion acts to restrain people’s behaviour so that the State doesn’t have to. The more powerful the religious force in society, the less need there is to restrict personal freedom, as people are less likely to abuse it. Separate Church and State, not to weaken the force of religion in society, but to strengthen it. Separate Church and State, not to offer freedom to the people, but to ensure that they don’t abuse it.