Political Science

How does religious, scientific andor political authority play a role in their theories How is such authority either affirmed or questioned

The theories forwarded by Descartes, Hobbes and Locke argue for the existence of a temporal authority and the legitimacy of such an authority. This temporal authority refers to the authority that is witnessed in two relationships true to humans a) that which exists between man and man and b) that which exists between the government and its people. Significantly, JS Mills theory involves an appeal to a religious authority while the theory of Descartes provides justifications by making an appeal to a scientific authority and the theory of Hobbes seeks theoretical grounding through a religious authority.
It is crucial to note that while these philosophers present different justifications for their claims on temporal authority their theories nevertheless contain significant commonalities. For one, the theories of Descartes, Hobbes and Locke all rest on claims of universal truths, specifically on the necessary existence of God. In this case, the existence of God provides the necessary validity from which the validity of the human power and authority are derived. Essentially, the theories are necessarily framed within the assumption of a divine existence, as without this assumption, the strength of the validity attributed to authority that man possesses is undermined for the grounding on which it rests upon collapses. 

Descartes, Locke and Hobbes recognize the Divine to be the sole possessor of ultimate authority. Taking that view as their starting point, the three philosophers argued for the legitimacy of what is to be considered as a temporary authority among individuals and societies. For them, the authority of God extends to legitimize the authority of men over men primarily because every individual has the basic right to life. In so protecting this life from any transgressions, he has the right to assert his power and authority over the transgressor.  Furthermore, the three of them maintain that this authority is discovered through the use of reasons. For instance, to quote Hobbes from Chapter 14, A law of nature, lex naturalis, is a precept, or general rule, found out by reason (par.5)

As has been shown, a significant part of the core of the theories rest on a common notion on God. As much as there are affirmations that support the claims of one theory by another, there are also challenges posed by one theory to another. To illustrate this point, what follows are selected notions from each theory as well as the claims of another theory that poses themselves as a challenge.

The Different Theories vis--vis Authority and Legitimacy

John Lockes On the Second Treatise of Government 
Locke differentiates spatio-temporal authority from absolute authority although both operate within the state of nature. According to Locke, humans have a natural state wherein there exists equality among individuals. This state is different from the society or societies that humans have. Rather, it is a state free from any notions of societies and takes into account only individuality and the law that governs individuals courses of actions without necessarily having an appeal to some human social contract.
To Locke, the natural law is consisted of reason, which is a God-given gift that is present in every individual and that which determines the propriety of human actions. To quote Locke, And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another but yet no absolute or arbitrary power (8). This arbitrary power is defined only within the imposition of sanction to an offender. Mill argues for the power or authority of men over men based on the premise that every man hath a right to punish the offender, and be executioner of the Law of Nature (8). 

Lockes appeal is necessarily religious. Specifically, Locke draws the authority and legitimacy of power that is attributed to men and to the government over its people from the necessary and absolute authority of the existence of God. To quote, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined (Locke, 1).

The theory of Thomas Hobbes on the other hand, offers a significantly different claim on the existence of God which may try to undermine the kind of authority that Lockes arguments appealed to. To quote from Chapter 3, Whatsoever we imagine is finite. Therefore there is no idea or conception of anything we call infinite. No man can have in his mind an image of infinite magnitude nor conceive infinite swiftness, infinite time, or infinite force, or infinite power And therefore the name of God is used, not to make us conceive Him but that we may honor Him (Hobbes, par.13) 

Thomas Hobbes The Leviathan
Hobbes, on the other hand, draws the authority and its legitimacy from what he terms as the right of nature, that which gives human the liberty to exercise his powers over fellow men in efforts to preserve his life and that which the power of reason discovers. To quote from Chapter 15, The right of nature , which writers commonly call jus naturale, is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature that is to say of his own life (Hobbes, par.1). Furthermore, Hobbes in Chapter 5 states, When man reasoneth, he does nothing else but conceive a sum total, from addition of parcels or conceive a remainder, from subtraction of sum from another which, it if be done by words, is conceiving of the consequence (Hobbes, par.1).

Contrary to Lockes arguments, Hobbes idea of the state of nature is composed of a state of war. Hobbes in Chapter 13 states, So that in the nature of man, we find three principle causes of quarrel competition secondly, diffidence thirdly, glory (Hobbes, par.6). In this context, the legitimacy of power and authority come from the state of war, while in Mills arguments the same follow from the peaceful natural state of nature. 

Rene Descartes Method on Discourse
Descartes also seeks justifications for the power of reason by necessarily making an appeal to a Divine existence but which practical application resides significantly on scientific authority. To quote from Part 3, For since God has endowed each f us with some light of reason by which to distinguish truth from error, I could not have believed that I ought for a single moment to rest satisfied with the opinions of another, unless I had resolved to exercise my own judgment in examining these whenever I should be duly qualified for the taskAnd in fine, I could not have restrained my desires, nor remained satisfied had I not followed a path in which thought myself certain of attaining all the knowledge to the acquisition of which I was competent (Descartes, par.5). 

According to Descartes, it is only proper for the human mind to reject that something which it doubts. As the fives senses of humans necessarily err and the natural design of humans are necessarily imperfect, everything that the five sense conceive of are doubtful but not altogether to be disposed as pure illusionary. Descartes argues that the fact something touches the senses and the fact that the individual is conscious of its own existence means that there is something real that has caused all of these experiences. As the reality of objects that caused the experiences is necessarily apart from human consciousness, they should be from somewhere else. That is to say, that their reality should be from something les imperfect like human sense because the highly fallible nature of human sense cannot possibly cause them.  If it did, the limitations of the senses render in this case, the sensical interpretations of data false already and thus the reality it forms of objects is necessarily false. That perfect source God. To quote from Part 4, It remained that it had been placed in me by a nature which was in reality more perfect than mine, and which even possessed within itself all the perfections of which I could form any idea that is to say, in a single word, which was God (Descartes, par.5).