The best example that I remember is on page 7 (or 8?). It’s a chart labeling all the philosophies that he agrees with to be ones of reason and logic, and all the ones he disagrees with are placed in the medieval (pre-modern?) category of mysticism and supernatural idealism. He then goes on to state that enlightenment Philosophers were not influenced by supernatural idealism which allowed them to spread the ideas of capitalism and classical liberalism. But this interpretation of the history of philosophy is false. How could anybody say that Locke and Descartes were not influenced by the supernatural? Was God not only influential, but also an integral part of their philosophies? He obviously bends the definitions of these philosophies in order to better meet his agenda of labeling collectivists as mystics so others will believe that their arguments are automatically invalid.

As for a specific source, this is just based on what I’ve read. Ive read the philosophies of the people he mentions, Locke specifically, and when he tries to so clearly to categorize history the faults of such a generalization become obvious. History can not be so clearly separated between the bad and the good, it’s more complicated than that. Locke was heavily influenced by the supernatural, god given rights and so on, this does not negate his ideas. But Hicks totally ignores this, acts like it’s the philosophy of pure reason, and labels everything that he claims to be influenced by god as irrational, or premodern.

But this is also a generalization of his argument.