Skip to main content
padlock icon - secure page this page is secure

Hobbes's Religion and Political Philosophy: A Reply To Greg Forster

Buy Article:

$22.62 + tax (Refund Policy)

A.P. Martinich's interpretation that in Leviathan Thomas Hobbes believed that the laws of nature are the commands of God and that he did not rely on the Bible to prove this has been criticized by Greg Forster in this journal (2003). Forster uses these criticisms to develop his own view that Hobbes was insincere when he professed religious beliefs. We argue that Forster misrepresents Martinich's view, is mistaken about what evidence is relevant to interpreting whether Hobbes was sincere or not, and is mistaken about some of Hobbes's central doctrines. Forster's criticisms are worth discussing at length for at least three reasons. He takes the debate about Hobbes's sincerity to a new level of sophistication; his misinterpretations of Hobbes may become accepted as correct; and his criticisms raise issues about the proper method of interpreting historical texts.
No References
No Citations
No Supplementary Data
No Article Media
No Metrics

Keywords: Biblical interpretation; Divine command theory of law; Hobbes and atheism; Hobbes and self-preservation; Hobbes' orthodoxy; Hobbes' political philosophy; Hobbes' religion; Hobbes' religious views; Hobbes' obligation; Laws of nature; interpretation

Document Type: Research Article

Affiliations: Department of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station, Austin, Texas 78712, USA, Email: [email protected]

Publication date: January 1, 2008

  • Access Key
  • Free content
  • Partial Free content
  • New content
  • Open access content
  • Partial Open access content
  • Subscribed content
  • Partial Subscribed content
  • Free trial content
Cookie Policy
Cookie Policy
Ingenta Connect website makes use of cookies so as to keep track of data that you have filled in. I am Happy with this Find out more