“God does not ponder the human race in general. At a single glance, he sees separately all of the beings of which humanity is composed and he perceives each of them with the similarities that bring [each one] closer to all and the differences that isolate [each one] from [everyone else].” (Tocqueville)
As what typically seems to be the case with words in the English language, the word “religion” is wildly incomprehensive. The arrogance! We believe we can haphazardly group the complexities of faith into a single word. The genius of Socrates and Plato was their ability to see Truth and the forms. But for us, we must first make some assumptions about religion to participate in a truthful discussion about its relevance to democracy. First, I propose that any religion today can be sorted into the following categories: a moral code, an explanation + a path to salvation, or some combination of the other categories. Despite being an assumption, this image of religion allows us to avoid making unnecessarily broad strokes. Additionally, with this definition of religion, it becomes far easier to construct a set of research questions to examine the relevance of religion to modern democracy.
These questions also define the structure of my paper.
Question #1 → Part II
Questions #2 and #3 → Part III
First, is a shared moral code necessary in modern democracy? Second, are dogmatic beliefs still essential today? Finally, is the democratic taste for material well-being still relevant today? And if so, does it rely on the concept of salvation? Once each of these questions is answered, we can provide a definitive statement about the relevance of religion in modern democracies.
In this section, we’ll explore the necessity of shared moral codes in modern democracy. Tocqueville argues that “all sects preach the same morality in the name of God” (1.2.9, pg. 279). With this logic, it doesn’t matter whether our state consists of multiple religions—as long as these religions share some core doctrines. So, we’ll equate “moral code” to a combination of various perennial religious virtues. There is a convincing argument for this “shared virtue” across religions. Tocqueville briefly discusses this in his second book, arguing that “the founders of almost all religions held to nearly the same language” (2.2.9, pg. 504). Specifically, this “language” is the controlling of passions.
Nonetheless, is this moral code—even if spread across multiple systems of belief—necessary in a democratic society? Democracy prioritizes individual freedom, which Locke defines as the natural state of all human beings. However, freedom to act includes the freedom to harm. Locke argues that if there were abundance, the concept of individual liberty would be natural and undeniably Good. However, in a state of scarcity, our freedom can infringe upon others (Two Treatises, On the Formation of Political Communities). This reality, along with money and the democratic value of material well-being, contributes to a society that is generally self-interested—a city of tyrants. This is where religion comes in. As long as there are common virtues of controlling the passions and self-sacrifice, there is a safeguard against greed and inevitable tyranny. Tocqueville echoes this idea, claiming that “at the same time law permits the American people to do everything, religion prevents them from conceiving everything and forbids them to dare everything” (1.2.9, pg. 280).
Shared virtues (stemming from religion) also promote a sense of companionship crucial for a well-functioning democracy. Washington argues in his Farewell Address that shared values give us a common cause and a reason to create joint counsels. This pattern of religion as a catalyst for collaboration is also argued by Tocqueville through the concept of self-interest well understood. However, in his case, it isn’t the moral code that unites us but rather the limitlessness of salvation. Moral codes also prevent violence. Montesquieu considers religion to be a great “healing” force for humanity (Spirit of the Laws), referencing Spain as a nation that rejected moral codes and thus became violent. Human nature hasn’t changed much since Tocqueville’s time. We still are devoured by greed and need shared ideals to collaborate. So, even in our modern democracy, religion remains necessary to counteract human flaws.
The tragedy of mankind is our curiosity matched with our own inability.
People who embrace modern democracy often have a strong appetite for reason. Yet, we lack the reasoning power to philosophize every matter. Francis Bacon didn’t intend the scientific method to be brief and simple. This leads us to dogmatic beliefs. Tocqueville notes that if “man were forced to prove to himself all the truths he makes use of every day, he would never finish” (2.1.2, pg. 207). Ultimately, we must rely on experts. Dogmatic beliefs—“opinions men receive on trust without discussing them” (2.1.2, pg. 407)—are simply a bug in our wiring. Our quest for truth and reason ironically leads us back to trust and faith. Generalization is another byproduct of this clash (2.1.3). Our language forces us to generalize: all trees are Trees, all dogs are Dogs.
Yet, we persist in asking questions, trying to piece together the universe with flawed tools. Eventually, our gaze turns heavenward, seeking answers to divine questions of purpose, existence, life, and death. As Tocqueville beautifully put it, “allow the human mind to follow its tendency and it will ‘harmonize Earth with heaven’” (1.2.9, pg. 275). But we fail, and our distaste for an unexplained life drives us to conceive of other worlds (1.2.9, pg. 284). Religion provides answers to these questions and helps us accept our limits. It is just another dogmatic belief—so as long as these beliefs exist, religion will too.
A democratic society highlights inequality. Tocqueville argues that when society is equalized, the poor can see what it means to be rich (2.2.10, pg. 504). Today, technology and communication bring us even closer to the ultra-wealthy, making us more aware of what we lack. For Tocqueville, perceived inequality is inequality. In this world of limited goods and competition, there is a strong focus on the self.
But salvation is different. The divine gift of salvation (or enlightenment) is not scarce. Tocqueville argues that religion teaches us cooperation in our quest for material goods—something vital for democracy. There could be no democracy or political society without this cooperation.
In conclusion, religion is still central to democracy, as shown by our three research questions. Our greed and lust for power push us toward moral codes. Our curiosity and limited intellect keep us reliant on dogmatic beliefs. Finally, in a materialistic society, religion remains a foundation for collaboration.