Thomas Hobbes's Argument Against Religious Freedom

Locke, like Kanye West, believed that it is impossible for one to voluntarily consent to slavery for it negates ones best interests. This is based on his belief in humanity’s inherent right to ‘natural liberty’ and ‘social liberty’, the latter being the right to only be controlled by power wielded by the common-wealth of which one has consented. For Locke, the state of slavery is only possible during the state of war when a prisoner has been forced into servitude by a conqueror.
10. How does Hobbes argue against religious freedom?
Hobbes felt that in order for the sovereign to be successful, they must have complete control of all information disseminated amongst the public. Religion and religious figures would have the ability to undermine

Hume sought to show that just because individual parts may have a cause, it does not follow that the ‘whole’ has, or even needs, a cause. Further, the concept of a ‘whole’ is merely a human construct placed upon a collection of individual parts and does not actually exist in nature as itself. Hume also posits his skepticism in the form of a dialogue between three people – Philo, Demea, and Cleanthes. At one point, Demea illustrates the idea of causation in the form of an analogy where a house needs an architect in order to exist. Philo, often considered to espouse Hume’s own views, agrees to “infer[ring], by custom, the existence of [a house]”, but counters that we have no “parallel” by which to explain the origin of the universe, therefore this analogy cannot be used to explain how something so foreign to us came into existence. Moreover, he argues against the cosmological existence of God is by equating causation to the ‘habit of mind’, or past experiences. He uses the example of a billiard ball hitting another ball. We know, from past experience, that the original ball’s motion will transfer into the ball that it hits, although, according to Hume, we have no actual evidence that the first ball causes the second ball to move; for all we know, this could be just a trick of the mind. It is only our past experience that tells us anything about this ‘cause-and-effect’ relationship. Further,

Through inductive reasoning, humans are accepting a proposition based on an invalid argument due to the inclusion of the premise that the future will remain as it has in the past. Given this contradiction, causal inference may still contribute to our success as a species even more than if we did rely on reason to make these inferences and is “essential to the subsistence of all creatures”. Hume maintains that “reason is incapable of dispelling [this habit of natural induction]” and concludes that these natural instincts are not contradictory to reason, even if they cannot be fully explained by reason, though we may never know exactly what this power is or how it is