MR: "The true Thomas Bayes"

Friend Ben Abbott sent this over to me a little while ago. From Marginal Revolution:

Thomas Bayes was a Presbyterian minister.

Bayes’s first publication was a theological work, entitled Divine Benevolence ([Bayes], 1731). Since no author appears on the title page of the book, or anywhere else, it is sometimes considered to be of doubtful authorship. For example, the National Union Catalog of the United States ascribes authorship to Joshua Bayes. However, Thomas Bayes was the author of this work. Bayes’s friend, Richard Price refers to the book in his own work A Review of the Principal Questions in Morals (Price, 1948, p. 248) and says that it was written by Thomas Bayes. In Divine Benevolence Bayes was trying to answer the question of the motivating source of God’s actions in the world.

The essay dealt with how to handle the problem of evil in the world.  It is also believed that Bayes was an Arian.

You can check out the entire paper from which this was taken here.

Prospect: "Why David Hume and Adam Smith were the original odd couple"

The engines of the enlightenment 

By Jesse Norman, here. A taste:

The date of 4th July 1776 has other claims to fame, of course. But while Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and their fellow revolutionaries were meeting in Philadelphia to publish the Declaration of Independence and launch a new nation, across the Atlantic a private gathering of even greater intellectual distinction was in progress.

David Hume was dying. Slipping away fast; so fast indeed that in February he told his great friend Adam Smith that he had “fallen five compleat stones.” Hume had installed himself some years before in the New Town in Edinburgh, in a house big enough “to display my great Talent for Cookery, the Science to which I intend to addict the remaining Years of my Life.” Now, knowing he was near his end, he had gathered Smith and a few other friends around him for one last dinner in company.

But although Hume’s famous fleshy frame had gone, his sense of humour—no less renowned—had not. When Smith complained that evening at the cruelty of the world in taking him from them, Hume replied: “No, no. Here am I, who have written on all sorts of subjects calculated to excite hostility, moral, political, and religious, and yet I have no enemies; except, indeed, all the Whigs, all the Tories, and all the Christians.”

With Thomas Hobbes, Hume has good claim to be considered the greatest philosopher ever to have written in English, while Smith is widely regarded as “the father of economics.” But even these descriptions underplay the measure of their achievements, for Hume must also be counted one of the greatest of historians, and Smith with equal justice the father of sociology. ...

Meet the Left's David Barton

Duke University prof Nancy MacLean's breathlessly-titled Democracy in Chains, allegedly a smear of economist/political philosopher and Nobel laureate James Buchanan as a nefarious racist "Bond villain" [as one Duke colleague put it], has created quite a stink in historiographical circles. So far, our usual suspects aren't the least bit exercised about it, and that's not surprising--if it can't be weaponized against the right, it doesn't exist. Indeed, many in the leftish edu-industrial complex have circled the wagons for her, as is their custom.

From the WaPo's Volokh Conspiracy:

Did Nancy MacLean make stuff up in ‘Democracy in Chains’?

By David Bernstein July 20 

Critics of “Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America” have accused its author, professor Nancy MacLean of Duke University, of mangling quotations to change their meaning, asserting facts that are not only false but are not supported by her own footnotes, and drawing wildly speculative conclusions about matters regarding which she has no documentary evidence. In short, critics accuse MacLean of making stuff up. Co-blogger Jonathan Adler links to many of these (and other) critiques in this post.

Many historians and others who have become aware of these criticisms have responded not by investigating the allegations, but by reasoning that MacLean is a respected historian, and respected historians don’t just make things up, and therefore MacLean’s critics must be wrong. (Adler also links to a couple of substantive defenses).

That’s where her allegations of a coordinated conspiracy against her book come in. As Adler notes, MacLean was asked in her recent interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education, “Do you have any evidence for your claim in that Facebook message [that you wrote] that the attacks on your work are ‘coordinated’?”

She responded, “I’m not saying they called each other up and planned a series of critical responses to my book. What I’m saying is many of the critics come from similar backgrounds — they are libertarians who trained at or are employed by the very institutions I write about in my book.”

In other words, no, she doesn’t and didn’t have any evidence of coordination. 

Massaging if not mutating quotes, generating factoids, complaining of a plot by her critics--sure does sound a lot like beseiged "pseudo-historian" David Barton, except that MacLean is a "real" historian because she has the documents to prove it. Read about the whole silly thing, here and also here at reason.com.

Presidents Washington and Jefferson Distance Themselves From Robert E. Lee

In case you need a laugh...

Cato's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism: George Washington

The Cato Institute's "Encyclopedia of Libertarianism" can now be accessed online here. I wrote the entry on George Washington which you can view here. The way it worked was I wrote something and submitted it to Cato. The late, great Dr. Ron Hamowy -- one of the premiere scholars of the Scottish Enlightenment -- then extensively edited it and made it into a much better piece.

Here is an example of how it worked:

Washington, like the authors of The Federalist Papers, had a particular affinity for ancient Rome. His favorite play was Joseph Addison’s 1713 work about the implacable enemy of tyranny, Cato the Younger, and throughout his life, he saw the play numerous times. He commonly quoted from it and had it performed before his troops at Valley Forge. The play concerns the Roman Senator who committed suicide rather than submit to the tyranny of Julius Caesar. Washington’s stoic sense of honor developed, in large part, from the profound influence this play had on his character.

Many people think that "Cato" of the "Cato Institute" is an acronym. It's not. It's actually named after the subject of this play. I wrote this passage, but the phrase "the implacable enemy of tyranny" was added by Dr. Hamowy.

Here is what I wrote about Washington and religious issues:

Enlightenment writers also contributed to Washington’s belief that men of all religions—Christian or non-Christian, orthodox or heterodox—should possess full and equal rights under the laws of the United States. That religious liberty was granted to all Americans, at least at the federal level, was unprecedented. As Washington wrote on January 27, 1793, to the New Church in Baltimore, whose founder, Emanuel Swedenborg, taught novel doctrines not in accord with prevailing Christian orthodoxy:

We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age & in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets, will not forfeit his protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.

If Confederate Statues Go, What of the Founding Fathers?

Many of those defending statues to Confederate leaders like Robert E. Lee argue that, if we remove them on the grounds that they participated in or defended the evil institution of slavery, what does that say about America's Founding Fathers? Won't they come for the Founders next? Today, it's Robert E. Lee's statue in Charlottesville, Virginia. How much longer before we're talking about the Washington Memorial in our nation's capital?

The President echoed this sentiment in his news conference earlier today. As part of his remarks about the Charlottesville violence, President Trump said: "[M]any of those people were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. So, this week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself where does it stop?"

Let me say something very controversial (but keep reading before you jump on me)...

Donald Trump is partly right.

Now, before your brain explodes, let me explain. It's wrong to defend (or express sympathy for) the white nationalist protesters at the center of the violence this past weekend in Charlottesville. We must unequivocally denounce white nationalists and/or white supremacists.

Nevertheless, the President is correct that many in our country are not content to stop with Confederate leaders. They will come for the Founding Fathers next. In fact, in some cases, they already have.

For more on this topic (and if you'll forgive the self-promo), I encourage you to check out "George Washington and Robert E. Lee Are Not The Same" over at my blog on the American Revolution.

While I do not believe the Confederacy should be celebrated or memorialized as a noble cause, I do believe the Founding Fathers deserve our respect and a place of honor in public life. And I will vigorously oppose any effort to downgrade their hero status. I won't defend the statue to Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, but I will fiercely defend to my dying breath the Washington Monument in our nation's capital.

**Edited 10/28/17 for brevity**

When Pseudo-Scholars Attack

Fresh from beclowning himself at history, Grove City College psych teacher Warren Throckmorton tries his hand at embarrassing himself on theology.

Throckmorton's leftism has led him to devote a large part of his life to attacking the Religious Right. In this case, Throckmorton presumes to interpret the Bible and lecture conservative Rev. Robert Jeffress on the meaning of Romans 13




What Throckmorton loses in the haze of his partisanship is that Biblically, Jehovah used unworthy rulers such as King Saul as the instrument of his justice against wicked peoples like the Amalakites and Canaanites. Indeed, Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar was used to punish the wicked Israelites themselves. In this theology, the goodness of the ruler or righteousness of his intentions is irrelevant. He is merely the "sword of God's wrath" against the evildoers. [Indeed, in this Romans 13 passage, Paul was referring to Emperor Nero.]

I don't purport to speak for God or even as a theologian except to note that according to his own religion, Jeffress's interpretation is as valid as anyone else's, especially duffers like Throckmorton operating far above their pay grade.  And we can certainly hope that God sees fit to use the world's rulers to end the wicked tyranny of the Kim family, who have murdered millions and make their people suffer hell on earth. This is what matters, and I agree with Jeffress that they do indeed have the divine authority to do so.

Throckmorton: "Dear Robert Jeffress: The President’s Authority to Wage War Does Not Come from God"

From Dr. WT here. A taste:

Historically, Baptists Believed in Church-State Separation

Biblically and politically, Jeffress is just wrong to insert himself as a spokesperson for God into the situation.He should turn in his Baptist card.

During the revolutionary and post-revolutionary period, Baptists were among the staunchest supporters of separation of church and state. Now the Baptist-in-name-only Jeffress advises Trump that God has given the green light for lethal action in North Korea.

Romans 13 Doesn’t Apply

First, in our non-theocratic republic, the authority for Trump’s actions comes from the Constitution, not God. America is not a new Israel where the prophets advised the King when to attack an enemy. Jeffress is not God’s mouthpiece to the president with orders from on high.

Second, the Romans passage doesn’t apply in this situation.

Although rulers come and go in accord with God’s providence, the rulers do so within God’s timing and the political structure of their state. Paul does not establish a mechanism for a ruler to discern God’s plan.

Regarding citizens of a nation, they are to respect the authority of that nation’s rulers. The words are addressed to citizens of a nation, not to our president about strategy for deposing rulers of other nations. This isn’t a mandate for America to become take out evil dictators around the world. While in some cases it may further America’s interests to do so, the authority and mandate don’t come from these verses.

Taking David Barton Seriously

From Religion in US History here. A taste:

Charlie pointed out to us that white evangelicals often take the brunt of academia’s ironic superiority. There is perhaps a no more popular (and, for some, no more deserving) target of this academic ridicule than David Barton. Circa 2012, when his publisher Thomas Nelson pulled his book The Jefferson Lies from print after finding “some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported,” Barton found himself the topic of numerous biting blog posts. For a while, academics had a field day on the internet with a collective reaction of “can you believe this guy!” coupled with “this is crazy, right?” Barton’s book, and his obtrusive Texas flag button-downs, became a meme for bad scholarship.

Yeah, I realize there is a much larger and more interesting world relating to religion and the American Founding than David Barton's missteps.

It's interesting the position we have found ourselves in. It's almost as though in order to begin discussing the topic, whether one is on the left, right, center or libertarian, one is obliged to give Barton a (metaphorical) kick in the stomach and then get to business. It's almost like a throat clearing "may it please the court" that appellate attorneys give during oral arguments.

Chris Rodda on New White House Chief Of Staff, Constitution, Oaths & Affirmations

Check it out here. A taste:

Really? As George Washington was about to step out on the balcony to be inaugurated somebody suddenly thought, “Oh shit, we need to have some kind of oath for him to take?” But this is the ridiculous story that the new White House chief of staff actually believes is “generally accurate” — a story that would be hard to believe even if the president’s oath weren’t right there in the freakin’ Constitution. But it is in the Constitution, a “piece of paper” that you would hope that someone who has risen to as influential a position as John Kelly has would be intimately familiar with.

When Ray Soller, who deserves the credit for catching Kelly’s historically absurd oath story, emailed a number of people, including myself, about this back in May, I was appalled by it for two reasons — not only because I’m someone who has been fighting the Christian nationalists’ revisionism of American history for over a dozen years, but also because I work for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and have been watching with horror as the same historical revisionism that for years has been steadily making its way into our public schools, the halls of Congress, and even Supreme Court opinions, has also been creeping into our military, with the most well-known Christian nationalist historical revisionist, David Barton, speaking at our military bases and his books and videos being found in military base libraries — including the libraries at several of the military service academies and the military’s other colleges.

Not only did Kelly tell his completely insane story (which of course also included the long-ago-debunked myth that George Washington added the words “so help me God” to his oath) at the commencement at one of our military service academies, but his not knowing that the president’s oath is in the Constitution went completely unnoticed by every news organization that covered this commencement. The only attention at all that was given to John Kelly’s incredible display of constitutional ignorance came from a few bloggers who, thanks to Ray Soller’s alerting them to it, posted about it on their blogs.

Reynolds, Throckmorton and Baker

On religion and the American Founding.

The estimable John Mark N. Reynolds sparked a discussion on the proper way to understand religion and the American Founding and picked fellow Drs. in the American Christian academy Warren Throckmorton and Hunter Baker as worthy discussants.

Here is Dr. Reynolds' introduction. A taste:

Christians in the academy disagree on many things, but nearly universally reject the historical analysis of David Barton. This is not because they are liberal (though some are) as many of his critics are very conservative politically. It also is not because the “guild” is protecting anything: good high school teachers who compare what Barton claims to the source material one can Google are disappointed in his work. Barton is, at the very least, incompetent.

Let’s move past Barton. How should we view the Constitution?

Here is Dr. Throckmorton's first. A taste:

Despite Sherman’s confidence in the liberal times, the delegates approved the motion without opposition. Pinckney later wrote that he included the no religious test clause because it was “a provision the world will expect from you, in the establishment of a System founded on Republican Principles, and in an age so liberal and enlightened as the present.”

Compared to many of the states at the time, Christianity was not denied, but rather dethroned by the national Constitution. The rule of law and the liberty of conscience was elevated. People of any and no religion can believe what they want in their hearts but the Constitution is the law of the land. In my opinion, the Constitution is neither godless nor biblical. Rather, it is god-neutral, where the believer and unbeliever stand on equal ground before the law.

Here is Dr. Baker's first. A taste:

But what did the founders think of religion?  I’ve made a case that they largely avoided the matter in the federal constitution in deference to the states.  But what about the men, themselves?  They are a mixed bag.  Jefferson was more of an enlightenment deist.  Thomas Paine certainly continued to move in that direction.  Benjamin Franklin probably fits there is some sense, too, but he was also highly pragmatic and was a great friend of the Great Awakening mega-preacher George Whitefield.  Patrick Henry was quite devout.  Benjamin Rush was a Christian.  George Washington sounded like a deist, but also was careful to observe the Christian faith by attending the Falls Church.  I think Philip Hamburger is correct in his assertion that the founders believed different things but were practically united in their conviction that a free people need to be virtuous and religion is critical to virtue.  For that reason, I doubt they intended to found a model secular republic.

Here is the link to Drs. Throckmorton and Baker responding to one another.

First Baker:

I think I could find my way toward agreeing with this statement if we were talking about the second half of the twentieth century.  My view is that the founders intended nothing so grand (or outrageous in the minds of the people of 18^th century America) as “dethroning Christianity.”

As I have stated before, the U.S. Constitution is not a document about ultimate truth or even something that sets out the proper course of law and religion.  It had the specific purpose of navigating this new type of government in which the states (traditional governments of inherent authority) would coexist with a federal government that possessed only limited powers delegated by the states and the people.  Surely, it has grown into the type of thing Dr. Throckmorton talks about, but it wasn’t that sort of thing at the time.

Next Throckmorton:

... However, I don’t believe the historical record supports a view that the delegates were united in believing that state governments ought to maintain religious tests or have a state religion. For instance, Jefferson opposed that view. He authored and Madison supported Virginia’s statute on religious freedom which passed in 1786.

In 1780, Ben Franklin wrote to Richard Price about religious freedom in Massachusetts:

I am fully of your Opinion respecting religious Tests; but, tho’ the People of Massachusetts have not in their new Constitution kept quite clear of them, yet, if we consider what that People were 100 Years ago, we must allow they have gone great Lengths in Liberality of Sentiment on religious Subjects; and we may hope for greater Degrees of Perfection, when their Constitution, some years hence, shall be revised.

Seven years prior to the Constitutional Convention, Franklin took the long and liberal view and hoped Massachusetts would revise the state Constitution to eliminate religious tests for office. This was the liberal and enlightened view adopted by the national Constitution in 1787 and which is true in the states today.