Natural Religion

However, there is significant textual evidence indicating that Pufendorf regards people as extremely unequal in their capacity to grasp the correct natu­ral theological propositions through rational reflection. For instance, although Pufendorf believes that living in the conviction of a punishing God provides a powerful incentive for obeying the commands of natural law and that it is God's punishments that should be feared above all, we should not overemphasize the motivational role of divine punishments in his moral and political theory. There are three main reasons for this. First, because the immortality of the soul cannot be securely demonstrated by natural reason alone, Pufendorf is unwill­ing to rely heavily on punishments and rewards in the afterlife.3≡ Secondly, God's retaliation â€?tends to proceed at a slow pace', which gives malicious indi­viduals a chance to explain it by other causes.3⁶ Thirdly, in practice, the major­ity of humankind guide their actions â€?not by reason but on impulse, and trust their lust as reason, chiefly by their education and habits'; as a result, most individuals mistakenly fear civil punishments more than divinely ordained other-worldly punishments.3⁷ Most of all, Pufendorf does not rely heavily on the social effectiveness of the fear of divine punishment simply because he thinks that most people do not guide their actions by rationally calibrating the present benefits in relation to the long-term benefits in the afterlife.

Pufendorf maintains that if a person cannot independently reflect on how the precepts of natural religion can be derived by reason, he or she is not allowed to present one's doubts in public. He argues in De officio that failing to understand the theoretical proposition of natural religion �is no excuse for atheism’.^[829] This idea is in line with Pufendorf's treatment of the awareness of the rational demonstration of the principle of sociability in Dejure. Theoretical exposition of natural law requires refined intellectual capacities and theoret­ical studies. Therefore, to present one’s doubts against the normative content of natural law in public is a sign of imprudence and foolhardiness. Pufendorf’s central aim is to convince his readers that sociability can be maintained only if most of us accept the moral opinion of authorities rather than acting on the basis of what we take to be truth.

Since most people are naturally unsuited to cultivating their minds and to rationally grasping the correct natural theological propositions, political coercion is necessary in order to maintain an adequate conception of God in civil societies. The idea of natural theology as the foundation of morality is not restricted merely to Pufendorf’s natural law writings. In the first part of De habitu, he endorses the notion that the state is not founded for the sake of religion and the ruler has therefore a duty to respect the religious liberty of his citizens. Nevertheless, he simultaneously maintains that the sovereign is obliged to uphold natural religion that does not depend on revelation but can be demonstrated by natural reason^^[830] Not merely Christians but also �most of the Pagan Philosophers’ approve that �there is a Supream Being, the Author and Creator both of the Universe, and especially Mankind, which ought to be acknowledged and worshipped as such by Mankind, as they are Rational Creatures’.^{[831] [832] [833] [834] [835] Everyone is obliged to perform one’s religious duties and worship God in his own person and cannot transfer the cultivation of his soul to others.41}

As Kari Saastamoinen has argued, for Pufendorf, the doctrine of natural religion â€?is purely theoretical model the purpose of which is to define those religious ideas and practices which are indispensable for human society’, the natural religion is not meant to substitute Lutheranism â€?as the publicly main­tained religious practise’^² Pufendorf conceived of Lutheran Christianity as one of the most effective ways to habituate people to sociable ways of behav- ior.43 According to Pufendorf, Christian virtues â€?do as much as anything to dispose men’s minds to sociability’^ Nevertheless, when speaking of natural religion in DeJure, Pufendorf's discussion is not restricted to Christianity or Lutheranism in particular.

[A] serious belief of any nature in the Divine Being and His providence, under whatsoever particular form or manner of worship, has the effect of rendering men more observant of their duty... [Muslims and pagans] because of their belief in a divine providence, show an active concern for decency and duty so that, so far at least as their outward acts are con­cerned, they do not seem to fall behind the majority of Christians.^{[836] [837]}

Peaceful social interaction in a large-scale political society involves coop­eration among distinct agents who uphold divergent religious convictions. Religious intolerance will have destructive social consequences. For that rea­son, natural law requires that citizens tolerate other people's religious beliefs and practices:

Base is also the view that it is allowable in religion and the worship of God to break any command of the natural law to another's hurt. Instances of this are when some men believe that they should maintain an active hatred towards those who do not belong to our religion; that religion should be spread by sword; that faith should not be kept with men of a different belief, and no so-called political friendship or acts of humanity should be shown them; or that every contact with such should be avoided as if they were unclean; that any crimes, treachery, perfidy, treason, rebel­lion, are lawful, nay, even praiseworthy, if they are done in the interest of religion.4⁶

Mutual toleration implies recognizing the others as morally capable actors without demanding that they must renounce their religious identity. While natural theology made Pufendorf an advocate of mutual toleration within the framework of theism, broadly construed, it also made him an advocate of religious intolerance.