tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post1923558246819992734..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: Half-Way House InfidelsBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21697808729733812252009-04-04T21:07:00.000-06:002009-04-04T21:07:00.000-06:00While it is possible that the original U of VA wou...<I><BR/>While it is possible that the original U of VA would not qualify as wholly secular today, it appears (to me) to be the <B>most secular</B> educational institution in its place and time.</I><BR/><BR/>Ooooops, missed this one. I like to answer in full.<BR/><BR/>I thought we already agreed on this, and I wrote to that effect in the above. No counterargument here atall atall.<BR/><BR/>;-[D>Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-89437815602792136442009-04-04T21:03:00.000-06:002009-04-04T21:03:00.000-06:00Oh, I don't want to defend David Barton or any of ...Oh, I don't want to defend David Barton or any of his claims. As previously written, I defend Barton only in the abstract against the incivility of the "liar" talk. "Liar" is a conversation-ender and there are bettter ways for civilized people to say Joe X is full of shit.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I also defend him in that zetetic way that we should use everybody, scholar or advocate, as compasses, not maps. I wrote about Howard Zinn in the same way. I think he's largely full of shit, but he can be of value as a compass, too. Should we believe 10 or 90 or 100%, you know. I say, check it out for yourself.<BR/><BR/>I dunno if your math is right at arriving at 2%. If the professor of ethics taught proofs of God and all the moral obligations that flow therefrom, 10% would be significant.<BR/><BR/>Regardless of the math, unless the professor of ethics taught non-God proofs and skepticisms, we must qualify the instruction as "theistic rationalism."<BR/><BR/>And so, I put it to you, Ben---is "theistic rationalism" consistent with the term "secular?"<BR/><BR/>There's a nub, too. In fact---as you've stipulated---our 21st century "secularism" would object strenuously to the "proofs of God" being taught in any form whatsoever in our public schools.<BR/><BR/>And that's a real damn nub, innit it?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-45460564570441748902009-04-04T19:09:00.000-06:002009-04-04T19:09:00.000-06:00Tom: "Well, Ben, keep in mind we're just exploring...Tom: "Well, Ben, keep in mind we're just exploring this. I certainly admit I don't have all the facts."<BR/><BR/>Agreed.<BR/><BR/>Tom adds: "What I find key here is that if the proofs of God were taught to all University of Virginia students and not counterbalanced by the arguments for atheism [which was still anathema in those days, I think], applying our modern understanding of "secular" misses something very fundamental."<BR/><BR/>Regarding this, I'm sure we can find "proofs of God" taught in every University in the USA today. In some these "proofs" are intended to be accepted as <I>true</I> and in others they are presented as examples of <I>proofs</I> by believers, but there is no need for the students / faculty to accept them as true or proper. The former is non-secular while the latter is compatible with secularism.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the U of VA, were the "proofs" a mandatory part of the curriculum? ... and where the proofs presented as true and proper, or as examples of logical arguments seeking to prove God?<BR/><BR/>To be honest, I'm uncertain there were any "proofs of God" in any part of the curriculum at all.<BR/><BR/>To pursue these questions, I spent some more time with Google. Below is Jefferson speaking of the specific language in question.<BR/><BR/>---------------------------------------<BR/>"We have left ourselves but little room to speak of the profession of divinity. No provision is made for instruction in this department in the university of Virginia. As this is probably the first instance in the world of a university without any such provision our readers will perhaps be gratified with seeing the portion of the report in which this subject is mentioned.<BR/><BR/>`In conformity with the principles of our constitution which places all sects of religion on an equal footing with the jealousies of the different sects in guarding that equality from encroachment and surprize and with the sentiments of the legislature in favour of freedom of religion manifested on former occasions we have proposed no professor of divinity and the rather as the proofs of the being of a God, the Creator, Preserver, and supreme Ruler of the universe, the Author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer, will be within the province of the professor of Ethics; to which, adding the developments of those moral obligations, of those in which all sects agree, with a knowledge of the languages of Hebrew, Greek and Latin, a basis will be formed, common to all sects. Proceeding thus far without offence to the constitution, we have thought it proper at this point to leave every sect to provide, as they think fittest, the means of further instruction in their own peculiar tenets.'<BR/><BR/>The result of this hazardous experiment it is not for us to anticipate. We feel as sensibly as the framers of the report the sore evil resulting to our theological schools from that diversity of sects which is made the ground of striking a chair of theology from the list of the Virginian professorships. With us, the evil operates in a different way, not in wholly depriving us of theological instruction but in splitting up the theological community, small enough at best for the support of an institution competent to supply the wants of our country, into two or three weak factions. It is the smallest evil of these parties that they divide that public patronage which is all wanted for the common cause. A sectarian spirit, most unfavourable to the improvement of Society and most uncongenial with the temper of Christianity is generated within the various theological camps pitched throughout our country. We are sure this is not a necessary division. The law has its Cassians and its Proculeians, as of old, but this does not throw its members into a bitter hostility with each other; and in our medical lecture rooms Brunonian sits down with Cullenian side by side. Why Calvinist and Arminian, Trinitarian and Unitarian should not be equally tolerant, we are at a loss to say. At any rate, we believe there is but one opinion in this part of the country relative to the necessity of pursuing theological studies, under the direction of academical method If there be therefore any considerable degree of justice in the foregoing remarks, it would seem that something like the continental universities is not a little to be desired among us."<BR/>-- <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=vH8FAAAAQAAJ&lpg=PA130&ots=RyS4bcviuG&dq=we%20have%20proposed%20no%20professor%20of%20divinity%3B%20and%20the%20rather%20as%20the%20proofs%20of%20the%20being%20of%20a%20God%22%22&pg=PA130&ci=166,555,753,778&source=bookclip" REL="nofollow">The North American Review and Miscellaneous Journal</A><BR/>---------------------------------------<BR/><BR/>Based upon this explanation, it appears (to me) that the mention of "proofs"/etc are done in an accommodating and ceremonial spirit. Those words appear to have been written to appease theological sentiments as opposed to instilling and/or preserving theological sentiments.<BR/><BR/>In light of this, I'm even more skeptical that any "proofs of God" were part of the required curriculum. Of course my understanding is perpendicular to <A HREF="http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=21076" REL="nofollow">Barton's claim</A>. Based upon this same information, Barton claims; "Jefferson personally ensured that religious instruction would occur, directing that the teaching of 'the proofs of the being of a God...'"<BR/><BR/>A reading of Barton's claim and a <I>complete</I> reading of Jefferson's words reveals that Barton <I>ommitted</I> all of Jefferson's comments that were not congruent with his claims ... the entire last paragraph, for example.<BR/><BR/>It appears (to me) that delibrately Barton has framed Jefferson's ceremonial accommodation as an institutional requirement.<BR/><BR/>Except for the accommodating ceremonial language does Barton offer any other evidence? This question led to me seek out a copy of the curriculum. From that search I located an outline, <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=vH8FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=we+have+proposed+no+professor+of+divinity%3B+and+the+rather+as+the+proofs+of+the+being+of+a+God%22%22&source=bl&ots=RyS4bcviuG&sig=ND9UnYev4N5dzvgQEc2JvC0rkT4&hl=en&ei=kvPXSZT5EoSitwev_qThDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA118,M1" REL="nofollow">see pages 118 an 119</A>. I notice that "Ethics" is implied to be a fifth of the responsibility of a single professor (of which there were 10).<BR/><BR/>This implies that "proof(s) of God" would be a fraction of 2% of the curriculum ... and we still do not know if these proofs were presented as examples of logical arguments or as literal <I>proof of God</I>.<BR/><BR/>While it is possible that the original U of VA would not qualify as wholly secular today, it appears (to me) to be the <B>most secular</B> educational institution in its place and time.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-74824281723407892592009-04-04T17:10:00.000-06:002009-04-04T17:10:00.000-06:00Well, Ben, keep in mind we're just exploring this....Well, Ben, keep in mind we're just exploring this. I certainly admit I don't have all the facts.<BR/><BR/>Your quotes comport with what I was guessing. Whether or not they actually set up the schools for the various sects to run for themselves [in the university but not of it], i don't know, or if Chris was right that no religious instruction took place until 1840.<BR/><BR/>However [clearing throat], it's actually more significant that teaching the proofs of God and of our moral obligations therefrom was assigned not to a professor of divinity, but to the professor of ethics.<BR/><BR/>This is key, as you pointed out. For if the baseline curriculum included God in this manner, using the word "secular" is premature. Non-sectarian seems to fit better.<BR/><BR/>Now, "secular" has some bearing, in that there were no divinity degrees awarded at all, no professor of divinity. I'd guess if you went to a Presbyterian university and got a divinity degree, it'd really be a degree in Presbyterianism. By contrast, I imagine a divinity degree from Harvard in 2009 would be non-sectarian, and in its way could be called "secular."<BR/><BR/>Once again, terms terms terms.<BR/><BR/>What I find key here is that if the proofs of God were taught to all University of Virginia students and not counterbalanced by the arguments for atheism [which was still anathema in those days, I think], applying our modern understanding of "secular" misses something very fundamental.<BR/><BR/>I would, however, be comfortable with terming the curriculum as "theistic rationalism."<BR/><BR/>Hehe.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15827144698492022402009-04-04T12:36:00.000-06:002009-04-04T12:36:00.000-06:00I tracked down complete copies of the letters from...I tracked down complete copies of the letters from Jefferson to Cooper regarding the U of VA. The 1822 letter is below.<BR/><BR/>----------------------------------------<BR/>Monticello, November 2, 1822<BR/><BR/>"Dear Sir, -- Your favor of October the 18th came to hand yesterday. The atmosphere of our country is unquestionably charged with a threatening cloud of fanaticism, lighter in some parts, denser in others, but too heavy in all. I had no idea, however, that in Pennsylvania, the cradle of toleration and freedom of religion, it could have arisen to the height you describe. This must be owing to the growth of Presbyterianism. The blasphemy and absurdity of the five points of Calvin, and the impossibility of defending them, render their advocates impatient of reasoning, irritable, and prone to denunciation. In Boston, however, and its neighborhood, Unitarianism has advanced to so great strength, as now to humble this haughtiest of all religious sects; insomuch that they condescend to interchange with them and the other sects, the civilities of preaching freely and frequently in each others' meeting-houses. In Rhode Island, on the other hand, no sectarian preacher will permit an Unitarian to pollute his desk. In our Richmond there is much fanaticism, but chiefly among the women. They have their night meetings and praying parties, where, attended by their priests, and sometimes by a hen-pecked husband, they pour forth the effusions of their love to Jesus, in terms as amatory and carnal, as their modesty would permit them to use to a mere earthly lover. In our village of Charlottesville, there is a good degree of religion, with a small spice only of fanaticism. We have four sects, but without either church or meeting-house. The courthouse is the common temple, one Sunday in the month to each. Here, Episcopalian and Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist, meet together, join in hymning their Maker, listen with attention and devotion to each others' preachers, and all mix in society with perfect harmony. It is not so in the districts where Presbyterianism prevails undividedly. Their ambition and tyranny would tolerate no rival if they had power. Systematical in grasping at an ascendancy over all other sects, they aim, like the Jesuits, at engrossing the education of the country, are hostile to every institution which they do not direct, and jealous at seeing others begin to attend at all to that object. The diffusion of instruction, to which there is now so growing an attention, will be the remote remedy to this fever of fanaticism; while the more proximate one will be the progress of Unitarianism. That this will, ere long, be the religion of the majority from north to south, I have no doubt<BR/><BR/>In our university you know there is no Professorship of Divinity. A handle has been made of this, to disseminate an idea that this is an institution, not merely of no religion, but against all religion. Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors, to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny, which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution. In our annual report to the legislature, after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction, we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish, each for itself, a professorship of their own tenets, on the confines of the university, so near as that their students may attend the lectures there, and have the free use of our library, and every other accommodation we can give them; preserving, however, their independence of us and of each other. This fills the chasm objected to ours, as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences. I think the invitation will be accepted, by some sects from candid intentions, and by others from jealousy and rivalship. And by bringing the sects together, and mixing them with the mass of other students, we shall soften their asperities, liberalize and neutralize their prejudices, and make the general religion a religion of peace, reason, and morality.<BR/><BR/>The time of opening our university is still as uncertain as ever. All the pavilions, boarding houses, and dormitories are done. Nothing is now wanting but the central building for a library and other general purposes. For this we have no funds, and the last legislature refused all aid. We have better hopes of the next. But all is uncertain. I have heard with regret of disturbances on the part of the students in your seminary. The article of discipline is the most difficult in American education. Premature ideas of independence, too little repressed by parents, beget a spirit of insubordination, which is the great obstacle to science with us, and a principal cause of its decay since the revolution. I look to it with dismay in our institution, as a breaker ahead, which I am far from being confident we shall be able to weather. The advance of age, and tardy pace of the public patronage, may probably spare me the pain of witnessing consequences.<BR/><BR/>I salute you with constant friendship and respect."<BR/>-- <A HREF="http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=808&chapter=88437&layout=html&Itemid=27" REL="nofollow">Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper</A>, November 2, 1822.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-1830950035659404312009-04-04T12:32:00.000-06:002009-04-04T12:32:00.000-06:00I tracked down complete copies of the letters from...I tracked down complete copies of the letters from Jefferson to Cooper regarding the U of VA. The 1814 letter is below.<BR/><BR/>----------------------------------------<BR/>Monticello, October 8, 1814<BR/><BR/>"Dear Sir, -- Your several favors of September 15th, 21st, 22nd, came all together by our last mail. I have given to that the 15th a single reading only, because the handwriting (not your own) is microscopic and difficult, and because I shall have an opportunity of studying it in the Portfolio in print. According to your request I return it for that publication, where it will do a great deal of good. It will give our young men some idea of what constitutes a well-educated ma; that Caesar and Virgil, and a few books of Euclid, do not really contain the sum of all human knowledge, nor give to a man figure in the ranks of science. Your letter will be a valuable source of consultation for us in our collegiate courses, when, and if ever, we advance to that stage of our establishment.<BR/><BR/>I agree with yours of the 22d that a professorship of Theology should have no place in our institution But we cannot always do what is absolutely best Those with whom we act entertaining different views have the power and the right of carrying them into practice Truth advances and error recedes step by step only and to do to our fellow men the most good in our power we must lead where we can follow where we cannot and still go with them watching always the favorable moment for helping them to another step Perhaps I should concur with you also in excluding the theory not the practice of medicine This is the charlatanerie of the body as the other is of the mind For classical learning I have ever been a zealous advocate and in this as in his theory of bleeding and mercury I was ever opposed to my friend Rush whom I greatly loved but who has done much harm in the sincerest persuasion that he was preserving life and happiness to all around him I have not, however carried so far as you do my ideas of the importance of a hypercritical knowledge of the Latin and Greek languages I have believed it sufficient to possess a substantial understanding of their authors In the exclusion of Anatomy and Botany from the eleventh grade of education which is that of the man of independent fortune we separate in opinion In my view no knowledge can be more satisfactory to a man than that of his own frame its parts their functions and actions And Botany I rank with the most valuable sciences whether we consider its subjects as furnishing the principal subsistence of life to man and beast delicious varieties for our tables refreshments from our orchards the adornments of our flower borders shade and perfume of our groves materials for our buildings or medicaments for our bodies To the gentleman it is certainly more interesting than Mineralogy which I by no means however undervalue and is more at hand for his amusement and to a country family it constitutes a great portion of their social entertainment No country gentleman should be without what amuses every step he takes into his fields I am sorry to learn the fate of your Emporium It was adding fast to our useful knowledge Our artists particularly and our statesmen will have cause to regret it But my hope is that its suspension will be temporary only and that as soon as we get over the crisis of our disordered circulation your publishers will resume it among their first enterprises Accept my thanks for the benefit of your ideas to our scheme of education and the assurance of my constant esteem and respect."<BR/>-- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, October 8, 1914; <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=Z9ZW4_G38iAC&lpg=PA200&ots=Yb9NytSNYN&dq=%22Rush%2C%20whom%20I%20greatly%20loved%3B%20but%20who%20has%20done%20much%20harm%22&pg=PA199&ci=77,994,766,348&source=bookclip" REL="nofollow">The Writings of Thomas Jefferson By Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Adgate Lipscomb, Albert Ellery Bergh, Richard Holland Johnston, Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States</A>bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48934243537283927072009-04-04T10:52:00.000-06:002009-04-04T10:52:00.000-06:00Wikipedia has an article on the University of Virg...Wikipedia has an <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Virginia" REL="nofollow">article on the University of Virginia</A>. Which includes ...<BR/><BR/>"An even more controversial direction was taken for the new university based on a daring vision that higher education should be completely separated from religious doctrine. One of the largest construction projects in North America up to that time, the new Grounds were centered upon a library (then housed in <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rotunda_(University_of_Virginia)" REL="nofollow">the Rotunda</A>) rather than a church—further distinguishing it from peer universities of the United States, most of which were still primarily functioning as seminaries for one particular religion or another.[13] Jefferson even went so far as to ban the teaching of Theology altogether. In a letter to <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Cooper_(US_politician)" REL="nofollow">Thomas Cooper</A> in October 1814, Jefferson stated, "a professorship of theology should have no place in our institution" and, true to form, the University never had a Divinity school or department, and was established independent of any religious sect. Replacing the then-standard specialization in Religion, the University undertook groundbreaking specializations in scientific subjects such as Astronomy and Botany. (However, today the University does maintain one of the highest-rated Religious Studies departments in the U.S. and a non-denominational chapel, notably absent from Jefferson's original plans, was constructed in 1890 near the Rotunda.)"<BR/><BR/>I googled the quote to Thomas Cooper, and found a realiable reference to it ; <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTIoAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA903&ots=v9jioX77S6&dq=%22a%20professorship%20of%20theology%20should%20have%20no%20place%20in%20our%20institution%22&pg=PA903&ci=42,1004,397,96&source=bookclip" REL="nofollow">The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson Classified and Arranged in Alphabetical Order Under Nine Thousand Titles Relating to Government, Politics, Law, Education, Political Economy, Finance, Science, Art, Literature, Religious Freedom, Morals, Etc By Thomas Jefferson, John P. Foley</A><BR/><BR/>It is accompanied by a more detailed description.<BR/><BR/>"In our University there is no professorship of divinity A handle been made of this to disseminate an idea this is an nistitution not merely of no religion but against all religion Occasion was taken at the last meeting of the Visitors to bring forward an idea that might silence this calumny which weighed on the minds of some honest friends to the institution In our annual report to the Legislature after stating the constitutional reasons against a public establishment of any religious instruction we suggest the expediency of encouraging the different religious sects to establish each for itself a professorship of their own tenets on the confines of the University so near as that their students may attend the lectures there and have the free use of our library and every other accommodation we can give them preserving however their independence of us and of each other This fills the chasm objected to ours as a defect in an institution professing to give instruction in all useful sciences I think the invitation will be accepted by some sects from candid intentions and by others from jealousy and rival ship And by bringing the sects together and mixing them with the mass of other students we shall soften their asperities liberalize and neutralize their prejudices and make the general religion a religion of peace reason and morality."<BR/>-- To DR THOMAS COOPER vii 267 FORD ED x 243 M 1822 See EDUCATION LANGUAGES and SCHOOLS <BR/><BR/>The complete reference (and link) is; <A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=ZTIoAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA903&ots=v9jioX77S6&dq=%22a%20professorship%20of%20theology%20should%20have%20no%20place%20in%20our%20institution%22&pg=PA903&ci=454,129,400,233&source=bookclip" REL="nofollow">The Jeffersonian Cyclopedia A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson Classified and Arranged in Alphabetical Order Under Nine Thousand Titles Relating to Government, Politics, Law, Education, Political Economy, Finance, Science, Art, Literature, Religious Freedom, Morals, Etc By Thomas Jefferson, John P. Foley</A><BR/><BR/>Based upon these quotations, I think there if fair reason to conclude that U of VA was founded as a secular institution.<BR/><BR/>One point I was unaware of before my today was to Jefferson was joined by Madison and Manroe as member of the university's <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Visitors" REL="nofollow">Board of Visitors</A>. <BR/><BR/>Although Jefferson was largely responsible for founding the U of VA, the land underneath had belonged to James Monroe (I do not know the details of how the land went from Monroe to the University).bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33686992038494480492009-04-03T16:45:00.000-06:002009-04-03T16:45:00.000-06:00Agreed. It opens up an interesting door for furth...Agreed. It opens up an interesting door for further study, no more or less.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91398612053436489712009-04-03T16:18:00.000-06:002009-04-03T16:18:00.000-06:00Tom: "The quote provides a lot of weight if the pr...Tom: "The quote provides a lot of weight if the proofs of God were core curriculum."<BR/><BR/>I don't see it. If the quote was <I>from</I> the curriculum, I would.<BR/><BR/>Tom: "That's a lot more than 'ceremonial deism.'"<BR/><BR/>If it is part of the curriculum, then I'd agree.<BR/><BR/>I should mention your negative bias regarding "terms" is matched by my positive bias for skepticism.<BR/><BR/>I'm not making a claim of what is more likely. My position is that I haven't seen enough evidence to merit a conclusion.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67907510144367060512009-04-03T16:04:00.000-06:002009-04-03T16:04:00.000-06:00I used "seems" to mean I'm not certain.The quote p...I used "seems" to mean I'm not certain.<BR/><BR/>The quote provides a lot of weight if the proofs of God were core curriculum.<BR/><BR/>That's a lot more than "ceremonial deism."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49670928163165166812009-04-03T12:11:00.000-06:002009-04-03T12:11:00.000-06:00Tom, I apologize in my delay. I've been rather bus...Tom, I apologize in my delay. I've been rather busy the last several days.<BR/><BR/>Tom: "It <I><B>seems</B></I> the students would be taught the proofs of God and of the moral obligations that follow. Whether they accept it all is moot."<BR/>[emphasis mine]<BR/><BR/>You're right in the middle of what I'm expressing skepticism of. What is <I>seems</I> is not evidence of what is <I>is</I>.<BR/><BR/>Tom: "I don't know what "ceremonial philosophy" is, and I dearly hope to discuss this without introducing even more terms."<BR/><BR/>My point is that the quote provided may carry no weight. I'm inclinded to carry a currency with the words "In God We Trust" on it. However, I'm under no burdend to profess or hold such a belief. The term "In God We Trust" has been described as "Ceremonial Deism" (a term I think would be objectionable to beleiver and non-believer alike). As I dislike that term, I substituted a new one ;-)bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82751028928315220012009-04-02T18:42:00.000-06:002009-04-02T18:42:00.000-06:00."I always pay it extra.".Old Humpty Dumpty. Didn'....<BR/><I>"I always pay it extra."</I><BR/>.<BR/>Old Humpty Dumpty. Didn't he fall off a wall?<BR/>.<BR/>Him, like the turtle on the fence post: Who put them there?<BR/><BR/>And, I try to pay extra when I do that with words as well, Tom. I try to explain what I mean and that is the extra payment we must pay--I agree. I don't expect anyone to be forced into the possibility of a false assumption.<BR/>.<BR/>But, then, what do I know?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-72209937083770797382009-04-02T17:40:00.000-06:002009-04-02T17:40:00.000-06:00'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rath...'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'<BR/><BR/>'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'<BR/><BR/>'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'<BR/><BR/>Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them - particularly verbs: they're the proudest - adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs - however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'<BR/><BR/>'Would you tell me, please,' said Alice, 'what that means?'<BR/><BR/>'Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. 'I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'<BR/><BR/>'That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.<BR/><BR/>'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'<BR/><BR/>'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31973834242839754292009-04-02T16:24:00.000-06:002009-04-02T16:24:00.000-06:00.TOM: "Only if their meaning is agreed upon by the....<BR/><B>TOM:</B> <I>"Only if their meaning is agreed upon by the discussants."</I><BR/>.<BR/>You're thinking about contract law, Tom. And, you don't mean discussants, you mean parties to the agreement.<BR/>.<BR/>In polite dialog, when one person uses a term and gives it definition. the other is bound to acceptance unless their purpose might be to befuddle and confuse the issue.<BR/><BR/>We shouldn't have to review such simple facts at this adult level. Get over it.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21365968459488739262009-04-02T15:39:00.000-06:002009-04-02T15:39:00.000-06:00Or, better put recently by Peter Baker, "You can c...Or, better put recently by Peter Baker, "You can call a rattlesnake a 'rhythmic reptile' all you want, but you still can't let your kids play with it in the sandbox."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8913610863488223422009-04-02T15:29:00.000-06:002009-04-02T15:29:00.000-06:00Only if their meaning is agreed upon by the discus...Only if their meaning is agreed upon by the discussants. Every formal debate begins with the definition of terms, otherwise whatever follows is Babel. As we illustrated here, in context.<BR/><BR/>I agree about the postmodern theories of language.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3258158365748420092009-04-02T15:18:00.000-06:002009-04-02T15:18:00.000-06:00.Terms."Me things [Tom] doth protest too much.".Be....<BR/><B>Terms</B><BR/>.<BR/>"Me things [Tom] doth protest too much."<BR/>.<BR/>Before postmodernism had such influence on the way we understand ideas, terms almost always had specific meanings...<BR/>.<BR/>In context, terms continue to be practical tools of language..<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42336069240247951322009-04-02T14:44:00.000-06:002009-04-02T14:44:00.000-06:00It seems the students would be taught the proofs o...It seems the students would be taught the proofs of God and of the moral obligations that follow. Whether they accept it all is moot.<BR/><BR/>I don't know what "ceremonial philosophy" is, and I dearly hope to discuss this without introducing even more terms. ;-}Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64409257056139522362009-04-02T14:36:00.000-06:002009-04-02T14:36:00.000-06:00Tom: "Neither do I get the impression that this in...Tom: "Neither do I get the impression that this instruction was elective like today's "comparative theology" classes; it seems to be the core curriculum."<BR/><BR/>This is an important point. I don't know either.<BR/><BR/>Tom: "Would teaching the proofs of God and our obligations thereby pass muster in our "secular" public schools of today?"<BR/><BR/>Certainly, not!<BR/><BR/>However, I don't see evidence that these "proofs" and "obligations" were things that the students/faculty were obligated to accept. After all the 10 commandments adorn the USSC building, but that doesn't imply that they are formally apart of our Nation's governence.<BR/><BR/>I'm not making any claim, but only expressing skepticism of any conclusion in the absence of evidence.<BR/><BR/>Is there any evidence that the examples of theisitic philogophy were anything more than ceremonial philosophy, that could be embraced or ignored at the discretion of the individual?bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-41357273123652851632009-04-02T13:43:00.000-06:002009-04-02T13:43:00.000-06:00.Give me a break, VanDyke. The entire proposal tha....<BR/>Give me a break, VanDyke. The entire proposal that America was or was not Founded as a Christian Nation is opinion. In that sense, the bloggers here search for evidence to either prove or disprove that idea.<BR/>.<BR/>I never complained about being "ignored"; but, must admit that it ticks me off the way you attempt to discredit participants with whom you have some issue--always trying to come out on top.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure that whatever I come up with on how religiosity impacted the Founding, you WILL be at your nastiest to discredit me one way or the other. In fact, it looks like you have already started your game. <BR/><BR/>People who can't take honest criticism don't deserve a lot of respect. <BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12529146683284924152009-04-02T13:18:00.000-06:002009-04-02T13:18:00.000-06:00I'll admit anything someone can prove. But you ca...I'll admit anything someone can prove. But you can't prove opinions.<BR/><BR/>You didn't answer my questions about how much or what kind of religiosity is OK.<BR/><BR/>First you complain about being ignored, then why I try to engage you, you complain about that, too. You wrote, "When we try to please everyone, we don't please anyone." You should have added, "But there's no pleasing some people."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-30559822975314551322009-04-02T12:51:00.000-06:002009-04-02T12:51:00.000-06:00.Tom, "... The 1600s are stipulated as bad, althou....<BR/>Tom, <I>"... The 1600s are stipulated as bad, although one might keep in mind that their religiosity was the force that broke the king's sovereignty and invested it in the people."</I> Depending how some postmodernist might deconstruct your comment, their religiosity was the exact same thing that had everyone else in its bondage. It was their interpretation of Christianity that brought them to break with the king. It was all part of the Protestant Reformation. But, you knew that.<BR/>.<BR/>July 4, 1776, gave the <BR/><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Independence_(United_States)" REL="nofollow">Coup d’etat</A> to the king's sovereignty. It sure didn't end until then. I am putting a reply together that should satisfy you.<BR/>.<BR/>But, it probably won't seeing how you hate to admit anything....<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69854593100886641842009-04-02T12:20:00.000-06:002009-04-02T12:20:00.000-06:00OK, Phil. The 1600s are stipulated as bad, althou...OK, Phil. The 1600s are stipulated as bad, although one might keep in mind that their religiosity was the force that broke the king's sovereignty and invested it in the people.<BR/><BR/>Ben, now we have a problem with the term "religion." Does it mean Jesus-as-God or does teaching<BR/><BR/>"the proofs of the being of a God, the creator, preserver, and supreme ruler of the universe, the author of all the relations of morality, and of the laws and obligations these infer...adding the developments of these moral obligations, of those in which all sects agree..."<BR/><BR/>qualify as "religion?"<BR/><BR/>As Magpie Mason pointed out, hitting the dictionary<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>Main Entry:<BR/> 1sec·u·lar Listen to the pronunciation of 1secular<BR/>Pronunciation:<BR/> \ˈse-kyə-lər\ <BR/>Function:<BR/> adjective <BR/>Etymology:<BR/> Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime<BR/>Date:<BR/> 14th century<BR/><BR/>1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal [secular concerns]</I><BR/><BR/>"secular" pertains to this world, but injecting God seems to throw a monkey wrench in that.<BR/><BR/>Neither do I get the impression that this instruction was elective like today's "comparative theology" classes; it seems to be the core curriculum.<BR/><BR/>I'm trying to get to the truth of the matter without the terms getting in the way. Would teaching the proofs of God and our obligations thereby pass muster in our "secular" public schools of today?<BR/><BR/>By the standards of the time, when universities were run by churches, the University of Virginia was "secular." But by the standards of 2009?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43971401623563064832009-04-02T06:22:00.000-06:002009-04-02T06:22:00.000-06:00."I'm really getting to hate terms." ;-D.I will pu....<BR/><I>"I'm really getting to hate terms."<B> ;-D</B></I><BR/>.<BR/>I will put a paper together on the use of a term you have shown a particular distaste for, Culture of Religiosity.<BR/>.<BR/>It will bear historical references to original source material just to satisfy you. As it is a new "thing" for me, it may take a little time as there are other more pressing issues in my life.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-78931671251870489652009-04-02T03:49:00.000-06:002009-04-02T03:49:00.000-06:00Tom: "So, I put it to you, Ben---does Jefferson's ...Tom: "So, I put it to you, Ben---does Jefferson's University of Virginia meet your or any definition of "secular"? "<BR/><BR/>It is imporant to understand the context. I think a university may be secular even if it offers/sponsors sectarian classes or events. The important context is; does it require sectarian or religious participation, qualifications of its employees, and/or students?<BR/><BR/>Secular is not the same as anti-religion. It is more anti-sectarian, or anti-theocratic. Secularism doesn't require an absence of religion or religious activity, just the absence of required religious belief and/or activities.<BR/><BR/>I admit this example is difficult for me to discern one way or the other. Is the university respecting the religious beliefs of its students and faculty? or is its intent to indoctrinate?<BR/><BR/>In any event, In my understading, to qualify as "secular" the institution must not be pro or con on religion. In either event, the instituation is participaing in religion.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.com