A Rejoinder to Mori

Abstract

Gianluca Mori and I are broadly in agreement about everything in my paper except answer to its main question, viz., how use of Saint-Evremond is to be understood in third Eclaircissement. Mori thinks that use of Saint Evremond was one of his provocations aimed orthodox readers. It is an instance of his thesis that Bayle's professions of Christian faith, though frequent, are generally far from being above suspicion: indeed almost every one of them raises questions about their actual significance.1 On my view, one line of argument for not taking use of Saint-Evremond at face value in his profession of religious faith ... is highly questionable.2 That is, far his use of Saint-Evremond is concerned, should be taken fideist that he, here and in many other places, in effect claimed to be.We are in agreement about nature of key text itself that cites from Conversation. It is a text, dripping with sarcasm, an ironic parody of very views that claims to believe. Moreover, himself is in agreement with view of text, and expresses it in so many words. The knot of our disagreement consists in how could have used such a text to express fideist views. Mori thinks that very use of text itself is sufficient to call those views into doubt. Bayle was fully aware that text he presented a 'clarification' of his fideism had very little right to be considered Christian orthodoxy,... In a word, knew full well that his fideism would be regarded insincere and destructive of faith .3The basis for my view begins with what says about text in a statement that Mori has so far not acknowledged either in his book or in his reply to me. Says after citing Saint-Evremond, Give thought a serious and proper tone and it will become reasonable. It is here that acknowledges inappropriateness of Saint-Evremond's text, but he does so to reject it it stands. did not, Mori claims, present text as a clarification of his fideism. Only when text is given a more serious and proper tone, that is, when it is stripped of its irony and sarcasm, does it cease to be a parody of his views and become an accurate expression of them. explicitly dissociates himself from unamended text, introducing it with comment that this thought has been given a ridiculous sense, in hands of a master.4 But Mori takes text it stands to convey message, if had not commented on it all. It is if, to repeat text end of my paper, Bible were to be cited stating claim that there is no God. It does so, of course, but only preceded by disclaimer that only the fool hath said in his heart there is no God (Psalm 14: 1).According to Mori, use of Saint-Evremond was provocative. text is not provocative, however. Had he intended it to be, he would have directly cited Saint-Evremond, without comment. Instead, he is perfectly clear about whom he is quoting and how that source should be understood. To be sure, such a citation is dramatic, and no doubt designed for effect, but effect is to show how unexceptional took his conception of faith-reason relation to be. in Eclaircissement is not trying to convert anyone but to explain his position in a way that makes it acceptable to Consistory of Walloon Church. To be sure, it is an irony that Saint-Evremond's text, slightly but importantly corrected, expresses view, but it is not an irony in sense of winking sarcasm.Mori insists that, a matter of historical fact, text was found to be provocative. He cites two additional names. One is that of sometimes disreputable fanatic, Pierre Jurieu, who found use of Saint-Evremond to be a wicked joke designed to amuse impious. In text cited, he no less than Mori fails even to mention comment on text. …