Which Christian ideas, if any, helped bring us into the modern world?
And
Which Christian ideas, if any, helped try to derail us from progressing toward the modern world?
One of the most difficult things we argue over is what is a "Christian principle"? My co-blogger Tom Van Dyke argues that since the rejection of original sin, trinity, atonement, eternal damnation (i.e., the ideas of Revs. Jonathan Mayhew and Charles Chauncy) was done by men in Christendom (indeed rejecting these tenets predates the Enlightenment) these constitute "Christian principles" along with the alternative more traditionally orthodox teachings on the matter.
I'm not accusing TVD or KOI of having committed the following mistake, but it is one that I see both the religious right and secular left make (the religious right, as I observe, makes it more often): Constructing a false dichotomy of viewing Founding era ideology as either "Christian" (or sometimes "Judeo-Christian," which they never properly distinguish from "Christian") or "secular" and then arguing for one of the two positions. The "Christians v. Deists" paradigm is just a variant of this false dichotomy.
Most serious scholars of whatever ideological inclination recognize numerous ideological influences, perhaps as many as 4 or 5 dominant strains. Bernard Bailyn noted 5: Greco-Roman, Common Law, Christianity, Whig, and Enlightenment. The ideological origins of the American Founding represented a synthesis of these five. The ideas are not mutually exclusive; some ideas/thinkers "fit" in more than one box. They bleed into different boxes. And further we rightly argue over what belongs in what box and ultimately which of the five dominated. For instance, Gregg Frazer sees Drs. Mayhew's & Chauncy's rejection of original sin, trinity, atonement, eternal damnation as "Enlightenment." Tom Van Dyke sees these as part of dissenting "Christianity."
Another problem, one I see David Barton and his followers oft-make, is appealing to the Founders' authority. No doubt sometimes the Founders were right, brilliantly so. But not always. For instance, just because Thomas Jefferson, a brilliant guy, vehemently denied the Trinity doesn't mean the Trinity doesn't exist. They tended to claim Christianity, properly understood, went hand in hand with natural rights and republicanism. Yet, I see these ideas coming from sources outside of "Christianity." Republicanism has nothing to do with the Bible and traces to the West's Greco-Roman heritage (though as the FFs articulated "republicanism," it was uniquely 18th Century) .
As men of the Enlightenment the Founders tended to see what was "rational" in all worldly sources. And both republicanism and monotheism were "rational"; hence these things could found in the Bible, the classical world, and so on. John Adams for instance saw monotheistic Providentialism in Hinduism and Zeus worship. Their anti-Catholic blinders led them to almost entirely ignore Thomas Aquinas when they spoke of "Nature"; but they did properly credit Aristotle. Again, he/they may have been wrong on many of these claims.
By presenting republicanism and natural rights as authentically Christian, they could have been (arguably they did) importing ideas foreign to biblical Christianity. By way of example, many leading Whig figures -- Joseph Priestley, Richard Price, Ezra Stiles, Bishop James Madison -- also claimed that the ideals of the French Revolution -- a universalism of liberty, equality and fraternity -- went hand in hand with Christianity. Indeed "republicanism," as America's Founders articulated it, had more to do with the ideals of the French Revolution than the Bible.
Indeed, using David Barton's method, one could easily claim the French Revolution on behalf of "Christian principles." Men like Joseph Priestley and Richard Price were not just devout theists, but believed Jesus the Messiah. AND they believed in the millennium. Indeed, they thought that the success of the French Revolution would usher in the return of Christ who would establish a millennial republic of liberty, equality and fraternity across the globe. (Likewise George Bush and his neo-con advisers believed success in Iraq would usher in a liberal democratic domino affect in the Middle East.) Barton might note secular society teaches only Christian fanatics believe in the millennium and the second coming, how Joseph Priestley and Richard Price were even more "Christian" than most of today's evangelicals (as I've heard him claim on Jefferson and Franklin).
But I think we understand the "French Revolution" was not an event of "Christian principles." And arguably neither was the American or the concept of a natural rights republic. This is regardless of what the promoters of said ideas try to pass off as "Christian."
52 comments:
I can't really answer because the ideas have been stirred into a big indistinguishable soup.
"Republicanism" is the mechanism they chose for putting the Founding principles into practice. It is part of the political philosophy, but not the political theology. It was also a product of America not having an hereditary aristocracy in place, what Madison called an American "genius" in Federalist 63. [By contrast, the establishment of a constitutional monarchy as a result of the Glorious Revolution in 1600s Britain in practice still put the power with the House of Lords, not Commons.]
As for "appealing to the Founders' authority, the error is on the part of those who invoke Jefferson and Adams to the exclusion of the other 100 Founders and ratifiers, as well as those who ignore federalism, that much of everyday life was left in the hands of the states.
As for what is argued as "Christian," the dignity of the human person is a starting point per imago Dei, an idea not of classical philosophy and one that predates the modern philosophy.
As for the French Revolution having Christian roots, the credit [or blame] for modern philosophy instead is much stronger.
Tom,
I not sure if you properly apply the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy. It's because the authority said it, it must be so. I actually invoked John Adams and Thomas Jefferson as someone who may err in many of his claims. In other words, just because they said it, doesn't mean they were right.
Jon stated:
"But I think we understand the "French Revolution" was not an event of "Christian principles." And arguably neither was the American or the concept of a natural rights republic. This is regardless of what the promoters of said ideas try to pass off as "Christian.""
I have read their arguments for a republic being in the Bible and am not buying it. They call it the Hebrew Republic. Could one take Biblical principles and come up with a republic maybe. I would say that Presbyterian church govt. did this. Some also say we got our form of govt. from the New England church govts. Who knows.
Just like Church government, I think God does not care much about how we set up our government as in the form. One form might work at one time with one people and not at another time with another people.
As far as natural rights being a Christian idea I think it is. Common law came from canon law if I am not mistaken. Either way common law is filled with references to the Bible. Locke a supposed enlightenment figure used the Bible to underpin his entire argument in his First Treatise. I like what Tom wrote under my post in response to JRB's good question.
You argument seems to say this:
David Barton says the the idea for a republic comes out of the Bible and he also says that natural rights could be a christian idea. So if David Barton is wrong about one he is wrong about the other.
It does not have to be that way. I think he is wrong about the form of government. I think he is mainly right about the natural rights thing and Christian principles. It is possible. Just like it is possible to be a trinitarian and accept Locke's political theology.
I am glad it seems we may be off the whole salvation theology leg of this debate and attempt to get at what ideas affected the founding and whether they were Christian or not. Can we start with "the laws of nature and natures God"? I say it is a Christian idea you have any proof it is not?
"David Barton says the the idea for a republic comes out of the Bible and he also says that natural rights could be a christian idea. So if David Barton is wrong about one he is wrong about the other."
It's more like I see Barton as being wrong about both not, because he is wrong about one he must be wrong about the other. If Barton said the sky is blue, I'd agree with him.
Tom stated:
""Republicanism" is the mechanism they chose for putting the Founding principles into practice. It is part of the political philosophy, but not the political theology. "
We are finally distinguishing the two. If we do not get this one right modern philosophy is going to win the day. It is what the public schools teach now and it is poison. I do not want to teach anymore because of how bratty these kids are and the adult gets blamed for hurting their self esteem.
We veered off at some point from the ideas that made this country great and we are paying for it now. I often think that someone was threatened by America's audacity to claim individual rights and has sought out to discredit that idea by teaching radical individualism and labeling it in the guise of individual rights. Thus, smearing founding ideals with modern crap.
They can look at America now and say,"See what all the talk of indivdual rights get you." What is the alternative? Collectivism and statism. Look at the public schools. I think someone at PL had a video about Kid Prison or something like that about how the Public schools are becoming like jails. It is happening.
Jon,
Where does the idea of the worth of the individual that underpins natural rights come from if not Christianity?
Christian “thought” isn’t the same as orthodox Christian theology. Hence the unfortunate but still descriptive term “Judeo-Christian.”
Founding era preacher [unitarian] Elisha Williams:
THE ESSENTIAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF PROTESTANTS [1744]
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=816&chapter=69224&layout=html&Itemid=27
"The members of a civil state do retain their natural liberty or right of judging for themselves in matters of religion. Every man has an equal right to follow the dictates of his own conscience in the affairs of religion. Every one is under an indispensable obligation to search the scripture for himself (which contains the whole of it) and to make the best use of it he can for his own information in the will of God, the nature and duties of Christianity. And as every Christian is so bound; so he has an unalienable right to judge of the sense and meaning of it, and to follow his judgment wherever it leads him; even an equal right with any rulers be they civil or ecclesiastical. This I say, I take to be an original right of the humane nature, and so far from being given up by the individuals of a community that it cannot be given up by them if they should be so weak as to offer it."
Now that’s a big indistinguishable soup, I admit: rights, nature, liberty, government, Christianity. But that’s what it was, neither classical nor modern philosophy, a third thing, and uniquely Christian, whether the pope or John Calvin would like it or not.
Uniquely American, too, although there’s quite a bit of 1600s Britain in it.
Was EW a “unitarian”? I haven’t delved that deeply into the record; but it’s one of the things I’ve been meaning to research. You are going to love what Gregg says about EW (I think you can guess).
Jon stated:
"One of the most difficult things we argue over is what is a "Christian principle"? My co-blogger Tom Van Dyke argues that since the rejection of original sin, trinity, atonement, eternal damnation (i.e., the ideas of Revs. Jonathan Mayhew and Charles Chauncy) were done by men in Christendom (indeed rejecting these tenets predates the Enlightenment) they are "Christian principles" along with the alternative more traditionally orthodox teachings on the matter."
It matters little what they believed about salvation theology. It really does not matter if they were or were not Christians. All that matters is if the political theology they used was Christian. It was Christian. It also can be traced back to Aquinas and maybe even before.
Yeah, memory sez Williams was, and yes, I can guess.
But the political theology had been accepted by even the "Calvinist's Calvinist" Samuel Adams [1772]:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/adamss.html
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.
In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society.
Now, modern scholars argue Locke dressed up Enlightenment ideas in Christian clothing. Even if true, the Founding era read him as thoroughly Christian, at least enough to fool folks like Sam Adams [and James Wilson, reputed as perhaps the most erudite among them]. These arguments are theological, not secular. [The beginning of the 2nd paragraph alludes to "natural law," which had been thoroughly Christianized 100s of years before.]
Gregg (after Mark Noll I believe) terms that part of the great “importing” of non-Christian ideas into “Christian theology,” part of the dynamic of presenting something that is not authentically “Christian” as so.
King asked: "Where does the idea of the worth of the individual that underpins natural rights come from if not Christianity?"
King, do you imply that prior to the emergence of the Christian religion the majority did not think they had worth as individuals?
Why is the worth of the individual not self-evident?
It is and when they used that the term self evident they were talking about revelation that God have man at creation. It was part of a long line of political theology.
Jon,
Gregg saying the idea is not Christian is based on his narrow view. When Tom quotes someone as Orthodox as Sam Adams who basically says what I have been saying about the political theology then Gregg's argument loses steam.
If they were "saved or not" is irrelevant to the political theology they all agreed with and where the ideas behind it came from.
If not tell us why? I repeat my question from above about where the idea of worth of the individual came from? If one is looking for a biblical justification for rights look to Gen 18:19 where God charged Abraham to establish justice and righteousnes on earth. I think individual worth in the image of God is the first premise. I think the idea of justice flow from that and ends in rights. God did tell them that murder was wrong becausee the person was made in the image of God.
He did not say this about the animals. The image of God is who he is and that to me is his glory that is described in Ex 34. Gregg refuses to engage in this line of discussion about larger concepts and shoot for dogmatic readings of obscure verses to fit his pre conceived ideas.
We all do it but he never admits it. He thinks he is quoting God.
If they were "saved or not" is irrelevant to the political theology they all agreed with and where the ideas behind it came from.
I think Gregg and I would both agree with you this far. Gregg would (I presume) categorize Sam Adams as a "saved" Christian (orthodox, one who accepted the doctrine of "regeneration") yet still sees his embrace of Lockean principles as a saved orthodox guy embracing something not authentically Christian.
In other words, it wasn't just the Christians who influenced Deists and Unitarians (that is D&Us often promoted Christian ideas), but the converse as well: D&Us influenced Christians and Christians like Sam Adams and John Witherspoon promoted ideas that were not authentically Christian or biblical, like Locke's "state of nature" teachings.
Jon Rowe stated:
" think Gregg and I would both agree with you this far. Gregg would (I presume) categorize Sam Adams as a "saved" Christian (orthodox, one who accepted the doctrine of "regeneration") yet still sees his embrace of Lockean principles as a saved orthodox guy embracing something not authentically Christian. "
Why does Gregg believe that Lockean Principles are not authentically Christian? Let me guess Locke's reading of Romans 13? That is ridiculous. He is not a historian he is a theologian trying to use history to back up his theology. He may disagree with Locke but Locke's ideas where Christian. I might add were Christian long before Gregg's hero Calvin came on the scene.
I think Gregg's reading of Romans 13 is Christian and wrong. He thinks mine is wrong and thus non-Christian. That sets him up as God. Both readings are at least possible and reasonable people can disagree. He will never own up to that because if he does he has to rip up his thesis and burn it.
I think Pinky is right when he questioned him what he fears so much about being wrong?
In short if we eliminate whether salvation doctrines matter in this discussion, focus on the political theology, and prove the Mayhew and Lockes reading of Romans 13 are at the very least Christian theology and possible then Gregg has to rip up his thesis. I take it a step further and believe that Locke's reading of Romans 13 is the most biblically sound one I have seen.
He considers the whole context of the purpose of the letter and gives strong evidence that Paul was telling the Jews that Gentile governments are viable as well. This fits in well with the whole Judaizer vs. Gentile convert controversy that was raging when Romans was written.
It is easier to label this heresy and name call than it is to refute the right of men like Locke reject clerical translations, read it for themselves, apply reason to the scripture, and formulate an interpretation.
I teach my kids to dig deeper all the time and expect Gregg to as well. I think Locke did and came up with not only a possible interpretation that can be called Christian but in my mind probable. It kills Gregg's whole thesis.
King,
I'm still confused. It is self-evident that one plus one equal two ... is that also a revelation of God?
It seems to me that the self-evident language is not subject to relgion, but that religion must yield to it.
I see self-evident, as reason ... but with a very low bar. Meaning it sounds to me like the assertion "all things self-evident are Christian" to be synonymous with "all things obvious are Christian".
Do you see my perspective? ... can you explain where our perspectiave are diverging?
Gregg is an historian and a political scientist as well as being a theologian. His PhD is in poly sci. Technically what we study here is an interdisciplinary intersection of religion, philosophy, politics, law and history.
Gregg would note it's not just Romans 13, but, more importantly Locke's "state of nature" idea that is not Christian. A good analogy is evolution. If one can reconcile evolution with Christianity, one likewise could probably reconcile Locke's "state of nature" theory with Christianity. Likewise Gregg is a Young Earth Creationist and does not believe the concept of "natural rights" is authentically Christian (arguably Locke's state of nature/natural rights doctrine is not compatible with Christianity).
"He thinks he is quoting God."
I mean no disrespect to evangelical-fundamentalists, but this is what they are paid to do. They are not wishy washy relativists (i.e., "in my opinion, this is what the Bible says"). Rather they "determine" what the Bible says and then argue, "the Bible teaches X," as in "the Bible teaches original sin; the Bible teaches the Trinity; the Bible teaches TULIP." But they disagree on what the Bible teaches. So to observe dialog among evangelical-fundamentalists is to observe them disagreeing on what the Bible teaches, but also to observe long standing lowest common denominators among them, like Nicene orthodoxy.
What is the pragmatic reason for being interested in understanding whether the "rights of man" are Christian or not? Theology is philosophical....
Thomas Paine was no believer, was he? And yet wasn't he responsbile for the "common senseacal" view of man's reason and rights?
Submission is what Christian like to 'pull' when they want their way (over another moral agent). Submission comes from a belief that government is ordained of God, directly. "He who resists government, resists God, as the government is God's instrument...."
Some cultish authoriatarian Christians think that if one doubts, questions, resists or revolts against the established authority, then one is resisting God. These who think this way usually make sure that they are the ones in authority, so thier will will be implemented as "the Will of God" upon others.
I am really weary of all religious jargon, as it is really about questions that cannot be resolved by reason. Political philosophy was and is what rules the day, so let's not dismiss political philosophy and moral philosophy.
Since science "wins the day" today, why not talk about how science views man. Evolutionary psychology understand man as a developmental being. And social structures are what the "moralists" have undestood to educate man. God is not the benefactor of man's nature these days.
Angie asked: "Thomas Paine was no believer, was he?"
Paine testified to his theological position in The Age of Reason. I suspect you'll like it.
"I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe."
I tend to agree with Ben that the worth of the individual is a self-evident truth. We see this in Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, Islamic societies as well. It's not exclusively a Christian idea.
I believe that many of the great "pagan" thinkers also embraced the idea of the worth of the individual. Men like Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, etc.
And didn't a lot of Plato's ideas seep into early Christianity? That is, assuming you don't believe they all came from a Christian god?
Ben,
I think the difference is that this has nothing to do with religion. It has to do with right reason. Locke and company believed that this right reason was revelation from God given at creation. It is this that trumps so called revelation handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. They said it would never contradict the special revelation of the Bible.
In other words, they thought that the interpretations of the ecclesiastical authorities violated right reason and that through the use of said reason they could come up with their own intepretation. This is exactly what Locke and Mayhew did with Romans 13.
The thing most do not know is that these arguments precede the enlightenment by many years. Christians argued this during the Glorious Revolution. My post on Adams shows that these ideas were used three separate times in England against tyrants and abusive Ecclesiastical authorities.
I hope that answers your question.
Thanks to ALL of you. Keep posting, and I'll keep reading. I hope more join in the 'fun"...
Angie stated:
" am really weary of all religious jargon, as it is really about questions that cannot be resolved by reason. Political philosophy was and is what rules the day, so let's not dismiss political philosophy and moral philosophy."
Locke would not agree. His whole political philosophy that I believe made its way into the DOI was based on a political theology. To ignore that ignores the root of his belief system. It is what the French Revolution did and we see how long that lasted? By 1815 all the gains for liberalism were dead at the Congress of Vienna.
Angie also stated:
"Since science "wins the day" today, why not talk about how science views man. Evolutionary psychology understand man as a developmental being. And social structures are what the "moralists" have undestood to educate man. God is not the benefactor of man's nature these days."
My second questions sets you up to be able to do this in the context of this blog's stated purpose. I am sure you believe that there were Christian ideas that derailed society from fully embracing Science and thus slowing our progress toward a modern world. The shouting down of Copernicus comes to mind. I am sure you can find others.
Make your case but you must back it up. Just saying that Science takes the day and all the theology does not matter does nothing. Do what the founders did and research the different governments and societies in history and show what is tried and true and why?
In other words, show us societies that threw out God and how this prospered society. I would caution against using the French Revolution it did not last. Your only recent case would be America like Jon says. So state your case. If you do it in the context of the purpose of this blog send to me and I will post it.
Ben,
He says he hates church not God. He was a deist not an atheist. If the way your are interpreting him is right then each person on his own decides whether someone has worth or not. That is dangerous and was not part of the thinking at the founding.
Brad,
Can you cite Hindu, Pagan, and Islamic sources that cite the worth of the individual? Even if you are right it is the worth of the individual WHO IS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF GOD that made the day at the founding. To claim the first and not anchor it to the second is French Revolution not American. I might add that would lead us down a slippery slope to Hitler like actions based on de-humanizing people we do not like.
We are founded on the idea that minority rights trump the wishes of the majority. This could never be if we removed the inalienable part of our rights then they are just given by the government. What is given can be taken away. What is inalienable stands.
Well, that's a proper question, Jon, and it starts to get more conceptual from here. My attempt here has been primarily to examine the zeitgeist of the Founding, not leaning on a particular Founder or quote, but to get the largest picture possible of the entire generation, of their "political theology."
Such scholarly gentlemen as you mention may say that "thought" and "Christian" are oxymoronic, but this is due to their ignorance of Aquinas, who wrote 500 years before the Founding and was thoroughly assimilated into Western thought by then. Basically, Aquinas' importation into Christian thought of Aristotle made thought---reason--- safe for Christianity and vice-versa, and Thomas was so assimilated into their Western Way of looking at things that they didn't even know his influence. [Especially in view of the prevailing and indeed virulent anti-papism.]
Which brings us to "natural law," the fundamental area of "political theology" agreement in the Founding era.
And to the idea that the application of wisdom and experience is somehow "notChristian." Interpretations of the demands of "natural law" [admittedly slippery, and contentious] is where the a priori must meet the rubber of the a posteriori road.
And so, as applied to the Founding era, or to Christian "thought," "Reason 'trumps' revelation," whether coming from an evangelical or a skeptical secularist, is an improper formulation. There is the Bible, but there is also "natural law," discoverable by man's reason without the Bible. This is what Aquinas means in his distinction between "special" revelation and "general" revelation. Aristotle obviously had a pretty good understanding of natural law and "general" revelation, well before the time of Christ.
And then there is a third thing, and that is the effort to reconcile the two. This was Aquinas' project, and one that filtered down to the Founding in the words of the estimable Founder James Wilson, whom I quote not as an "authority," but as an expression of the zeitgeist and prevailing political theology:
“The law of nature and the law of revelation are both Divine: they flow, though in different channels, from the same adorable source. It is indeed preposterous to separate them from each other.”
---James Wilson, Of the Law of Nature, 1804
To interpret the Bible via wisdom, experience and reason is not to reject it; this is where the theologues lose the trail, and where secularists might also, in their examination of the prevailing theology of the Founding.
As a quick example, every Thanksgiving, they tell the story of how the Pilgrims abandoned their concept of a "Biblically" based communitarian farming community because it left everybody starving
[I'll trust Stossel as accurate here:
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/071121-stossel-thanksgiving.php]
and went to individual ownership of farm plots. No proper natural law argument ignores human nature, and so would derive by "reason" that communitarianism ain't the way it's supposed to be because it doesn't work, and so, the Pilgrims' reading the Bible as demanding it was dead wrong.
Same with religious intolerance: Killing each other over doctrine and dogma provably didn't work in the real world, and upon further review, it appeared Jesus didn't command it either.
We might view the Founding era as merely practical or utilitarian or libertarian in embracing free enterprise or religious tolerance, but I think that analysis misses the zeitgeist, misses the truth of the whole deal.
Why is the worth of the individual not self-evident?
Actually, Ben, this is a philosophical Pandora's Box, and a question [answer] we routinely walk past in this modern age.
You won't find it self-evident in Greek philosophy, not Machiavelli nor Hobbes, nor in what Pinky's been talking about---that once the single individual enters society, his private "rights" become secondary to society's primary right [and duty] to survive, since there are no rights for anyone once order breaks down and savagery takes over.
Modernity has also led to the French Revolution, eugenics, Nazism, Sovietism, Maoism, and many of our current crises as well.
Why is the worth of the individual not self-evident
Even Jefferson wrote, "we hold these truths to be self-evident..."
...not that they were self-evident.
I hope you see where I'm going with this, and the Founders understood the equation perfectly. In our modern day, e flatter ourselves, and dishonor ourselves in our ignorance of philosophical history, to think that man's eternal questions haven't been asked previously.
The Founding in particular was where the rubber met the road, between the Greeks and the Christians and with modernity on the horizon. Again I must say, this blog is not just about some academic historical arguments, but about returning to the pivotal point in human history [so far] where they asked the right questions about the human experience.
We can debate the answers, as they did, but we must return to the proper questions!
I think you're asking the proper questions. But looking at all human history, and even the rest of the world in 2009, even the questions are not self-evident.
Regarding the authority of the Founders....
I don't think pro-Founding Father conservatives are saying that the Founders are always right. But they are saying that the Founders, by virtue of their wisdom, courage, vision, and POSITION as, well, Founders should be given a unique place of respect.
We should listen to the Founders with more respect than we would, say, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, etc.
Tom stated:
"We can debate the answers, as they did, but we must return to the proper questions!'
We are almost ready I think JRB responded to my challenge and refined my first question. I went ahead and posted it on the main page.
I have set you up to make your case Tom. The floor is yours because you know more about this than I do. I think what you have to say is crucial and hopefully we can work on getting a wider audience.
KOI - Can you cite Hindu, Pagan, and Islamic sources that cite the worth of the individual?
In the comments for the Saturday,
Socrates, Alvin Toffler, and Attempting to Catch the Wave
I mention Cyrus and Aristotle in the context of an early, nascent natural/human rights tradition. At least in recognizing the intrinsic worth of the individual in the context of the political group. And I'm particularly interested in any replies to the Aristotle question I posed.
It certainly has been lively this weekend.
In an earlier conversation (at Ed's place) I provided links to several sources that provided a start to answering the question.
I'm self employed and my work load for this month and into next has exploded (and no, I'm not Santa Claus), but I'll look into this and try to put together a reply (although I suspect a lot of info is readily available on line.)
I have set you up to make your case Tom. The floor is yours because you know more about this than I do.
Thx, King. It's just that I prefer people think for themselves. I try to tickle the ticklable, is all. Jonathan's been trying to draw me out this weekend too, mebbe. I dunno if anyone's noticed [certainly not Lindsey, who hates my guts], but I don't write on our mainpage all that much. I prefer our comments boxes, where we discuss everything together. Debate just becomes bloodsport and the truth is always the victim.
But thx, man. I appreciate what you're trying to do. I'm just not a Sarah Palin or a Barack Obama. Not a Jonathan Edwards or a Thomas Paine either. That's for other people, and God bless 'em.
JRB writes:
I mention Cyrus and Aristotle in the context of an early, nascent natural/human rights tradition.
Jimmiraybob, surely you're aware that the Old Testament exalts Cyrus the Great of Persia [who conquered and subsumed the Babylonian Empire] as one of the absolutely coolest dudes in human history, sending captive Israel back to their homeland, with their religion to reestablish. [And arguably, monotheistically, as opposed to their god being simply the strongest of many others.]
Well quoted, sir.
And may I add---along Thomistic lines---that the Golden Age of Islam called Aristotle the "First Teacher."
[al-Farabi, c. 900 AD, the Muslim polymath, was the "Second Teacher."
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1158321478684&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout]
And Aquinas, in all his writings, refers to Aristotle as "the philosopher."
Y'know, JRB, every once in awhile, I think we're getting somewhere around here. But classical "natural right" in contrast to "natural rights" via "natural law" are different things. In 2009, it's an indistinguishable soup. I assure you, Kant is not Aristotle, and especially not Farabi.
King,
Regarding the worth of the individual ...
If this has nothing to do with religion, but has to do with right reason, then how is the self-evident value of the worth of the individual of religious origin?
I'd be more accepting of the idea that Christian societies led the way to applying right reason in the examination of religious claims. But I don't think that implies that all the many things reason has discovered are subsequently of Christian origin.
I'm not saying that Christian societies didn't embrace it, or that Christianity is incongruent with it, but I don't see why Christianity earns credit the worth of the individual, or anything else that is self-evident.
Am I missing some point of fact, or are was at an impasse of perspectives?
King,
Regarding Paine,
You seem to have misunderstood me. The words I provided were those of Paine himself. I made no comment, or interpretation, regarding Paine's theological position.
Regarding your comment, I agree completely that he was a deist who hated organized religion with its human authorities.
I certainly do not see Paine as an atheist. Anyone those thinks so hasn't read the passage below from the Age of Reason.
"As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism — a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.
The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down, and representing it in reverse, and among the revolutions it has thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in theology.
That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology."
I included more than necessary for my comment because I like that Paine associates natural philosophy with science … I've always thought of Christianity as a supernatural philosophy, which I realize isn't generally an acceptable qualification (today or during the founding), but it suits me because I prefer a clear separation of the natural and supernatural.
Tom,
Good points!
I agree that The DoI didn't claim we know "these truths to be self-evident". My understanding is that his use of the word "hold" is synonymous with "believe" … although "we hold these truths to be self-evident…" is a firmer statement than "we believe these truths to be self-evident…".
With regards to modern life providing society the privilege of valuing the individual, I am in agreement. I also agree that it was Christian society that led the way to valuing the individual.
However, I don't see how it is proper to conclude that the idea of worth of the individual comes from Christianity.
In other words, the position that the worth of the individual originates from Christianity is far from self-evident to me ;-)
p.s. How's that for a Pandora's Box 8-)
Ben,
I am more talking about the worth of the individual because he is made in the image of GOD. This is uniquely Christian.
Ok, I understand your theological postion, i.e. that the indivual has worth because he is made in the image of God. And in my limited theological knowledge I agree that man being created in God's image is Judeo-Christian.
But I still don't see the worth of the individual as originating with Christianity.
Perhaps, the difference in our perspectives is, in part, because I see religion as a manifestation of human society. Thus, those societies which value individuals would embrace theology that does so also.
Anyway, I understand how you came to your conclusion and appreciate your efforts in explaining.
bpabbott,'
You begin with man or anthropology, or social construction (the disciplines), whereas, Tom/KOI seems to want to posit "God" or "nature" or "natural law" (theology/tradition/philosophy).
The REAL question is God "self-existant", or is he a social contructive myth?
I meself don't approach that question here. Above my pay grade.
And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God?
That's the real question.
Tom,
Today's politial religious view in America doesn't allow liberty or diversity, because their political views have been identified with God. Therefore, God isn't granting "liberty", but demanding conformity.
That's not how the Founders saw it. They say repeatedly that self-governance cannot work unless each man conducts himself within the bounds of natural law.
Defying natural law carries its own practical punishments, and doesn't require a God-as-cop with lighting bolts. What classical and Founding era political philosophy fears most is anarchy.
Which is what they got in the French Revolution.
Tom,
Natural law was Aristotle's view of "nature". The Catholic church holds to this view, traditionally.
I haven't read much on the French Revolution, but, the revolutionaries in France had the church AND the monarchy to deal with. Our Founders had a "distant government", as a 'monarchy, but didn't have a "STATE" SAnctioned Church....
We should want reform, as I believe that revolution in our country is a little mis-guided as we have a Constitution to "appeal to".
This is what "God" meant to Revolutionary France:
http://www.rotten.com/library/religion/cult_of_the_supreme_being/
Quite an eye-opener.
Jonathan Rowe said...
Gregg (after Mark Noll I believe) terms that part of the great “importing” of non-Christian ideas into “Christian theology,” part of the dynamic of presenting something that is not authentically “Christian” as so.
This is "redeeming" philosophy to serve the church. This has always happened, when science has challenged the church's testimony. So, the French Revolution didn't use "right reason", but created another religious tradition.
This is "redeeming" philosophy to serve the church.
You're getting on the right track here, Angie. The beauty of Aquinas is not in that making philosophy safe for Christianity by "Christianizing" it, but that he made Christianity safe for philosophy, and the entry/re-entry of reason.
"Redeeming" it, as you put it. Think about it, that your problem with "Christianity" is with those who rejected man's God-given ability to reason, and you don't have to write every comment with those jerks in mind. They were into power, not truth or the beauty of the Word.
Just a thought.
Tom,
I will write on my blog site more about my belief concerning individuals and groups, which includes the church.
So, when it comes to religious philosophy, there is NONE....so, I question the validity of theology itself....and when you say "the Word", I get very queasy. I don't consider myself an evangelical and wonder if I even want to consider myself a Christian.
Theology is really the study of God.
KOI,
Yes, theology is the "study of God", as if we can "study God".....
I don't think we can "know God", as this is delusion, projection and wish fulfillment. But, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, either.
I've always thought of Theology as a variant of religious philosophy.
Mainly because I apply the term "study" to phenomena that are observable ... which excludes all supernatural phenomena (for me).
I've always thought of Theology as a variant of religious philosophy.
Makes sense. You start out with fundamental assertions, then figger out the ramifications.
Post a Comment