피에르 벨의 관용론-양심의 자유에서 양심의 권리로-

The purpose of this article is to clarify the meaning of the tolerance in chaotic narrative of Pierre Bayle who vindicated the right of ‘conscience érrante’. And we find in Bayle’s perspective coexistence the mind of the christian philosopher and tolerant skepticism, experimental natural reason and dialogical humanist rhetoric. In his solitary refugee life Bayle experienced the silence of God on persecution and oppression of men whose aim was only complete grasp of powers of state and church. Before and after the revocation of edict of Nantes, Bayle noticed religional persecution which sacrileged our humanity. So he was considered as skeptic who did not ask on state of human soul, and accepted ataraxia based on philosophical arguments. As a result, Bayle understood religion as a natural reason and reached to the ‘positive atheism’ that did not agree the existence of God. But defense of atheism of Bayle was not derived from the affirmation of legality of society constituted by Atheist. Instead it was an instrument to realize the tolerant society by making an impression to the citizen on the dissolution and conflict which will be a menace to the principle of Enlightenment. In this point Bayle was a Deist. Deism is illuminated by the natural reason but not a product of absolute reason. But in reality, in his discourses of pluralistic tolerance, Bayle has much limitation, especially on matter of restrains the intervention of sovereign. Bayle was reticent on the power of sovereign which regulate and restrict the freedom of expression, press, speaking and writing, seriously. He admit that God gave an absolute power to sovereign to control people according to his conscience. By this limitation Bayle’s strategy to secure the tolerance was so reduced that the concept of ‘conscience érrante’ was not realized and failured. It was too subjective and relative to defense the violence attack of semi-tolerance advocates.