tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post4926589123192724884..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: The Value of DebateBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-91894833056770396662008-10-24T08:06:00.000-06:002008-10-24T08:06:00.000-06:00.A recently read definition:Deist; one who believe....<BR/>A recently read definition:<BR/><BR/><B>Deist</B>; one who believes the only true bible is nature herself.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24653375987687413412008-10-24T07:35:00.000-06:002008-10-24T07:35:00.000-06:00I might actually do some posts further elaborating...I might actually do some posts further elaborating what Franklin believed. For one, I believe he was more likely to think of himself as a "Christian" than a "Deist."Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-81816404399196411152008-10-23T19:44:00.000-06:002008-10-23T19:44:00.000-06:00Odd then, that Holmes doesn't use the term "Christ...Odd then, that Holmes doesn't use the term "Christian-Deism" in the interview, then. The interview spreads more fog than it dissipates.<BR/><BR/>"Christian-Deism" works fine for me. If God intervenes in human affairs and smiles on the good and just but withholds his favor from the wicked, for all political purposes, it doesn't matter too much if his name is Jesus or whether He died for our sins or is present in the Eucharist. <BR/><BR/>But the interview is puzzling to me. Perhaps it was the editor's or interviewer's fault. However, I think Holmes' misrepresentation of Franklin's actual statements cannot be attributed to higher [or lower] powers. Franklin <I>did</I> say he began to find deism as "not very useful" and he <I>did not</I> say that Jesus "probably" wasn't divine.<BR/>Therefore, I recommended caution in reading Holmes' book.<BR/><BR/>And I proposed a little thought experiment in exegesis in the post below this one, Jon, on what Franklin might have actually believed. Perhaps you'd like to participate...Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-10762715233648938482008-10-23T19:29:00.000-06:002008-10-23T19:29:00.000-06:00I agree that Holmes biggest flaw is his embrace of...I agree that Holmes biggest flaw is his embrace of the term "Deist" to describe America's key Founders. But he does, in his book, recognize the existence of the hybrid belief system with his term "Christian-Deism" to describe the key FFs as opposed to the non-Christian Deism or Paine and Allen.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-7559531145633478992008-10-23T18:51:00.000-06:002008-10-23T18:51:00.000-06:00Shanna, I'm sure there's value in his book, but I'...Shanna, I'm sure there's value in his book, but I'm quite underwhelmed by <A HREF="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/07/03/findrelig.DTL" REL="nofollow">this interview with David L. Holmes</A>.<BR/><BR/>His use of "Deism" is quite flabby, as it's a flabby term---Tom Paine's deism imagines a creator God who remains cold and distant; this is fundamentally incompatible with the God whom the Founders prayed to and whose Providence they credited with winning the Revolution!<BR/><BR/>Holmes blandly asserts that Franklin became a Deist as a young man. True, but Franklin uses the term correctly in its Tom Paine sense in his <I>Autobiography</I>: "I soon became a thorough Deist." But Holmes completely misses [or elides] that on the same page in his autobiography, Franklin also writes that later, "I began to suspect that this doctrine, though it might be true, was not very useful."<BR/><BR/>And Franklin never said he thought Jesus "probably" wasn't divine, as Holmes put it: Franklin actually wrote "I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it."<BR/><BR/>When asked again as an 84-yr-old man, the wry Ben simply observes, "I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble." <BR/><BR/>Now, I'm quibbling here, but Holmes puts himself out as a historical authority, and this interview shows a lack of scholarly rigor. This suggests his work may contribute more noise than clarity, echoing "common knowledge" instead of the <I>un</I>common knowledge that we need so sorely to work on this puzzle.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-67536546046509194932008-10-23T16:40:00.000-06:002008-10-23T16:40:00.000-06:00.Shanna sez, "I'd like to believe that at the very....<BR/>Shanna sez, "<I>I'd like to believe that at the very core of it all, in some ways, we are all still searching for the same types of things - peace, goodwill, and all of that jazz.</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>Shanna, that's a pretty name.<BR/>.<BR/>Yupper. Since the ancient Greeks, we're still in search of the good, the beautiful and the true.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35412009156209751672008-10-23T16:17:00.000-06:002008-10-23T16:17:00.000-06:00Thank you all for your comments and kind remarks.@...Thank you all for your comments and kind remarks.<BR/><BR/>@Phil: You pose some interesting thoughts, and it is true that we live in a very different age and culture than our founding fathers. Still, I'd like to believe that at the very core of it all, in some ways, we are all still searching for the same types of things - peace, goodwill, and all of that jazz.<BR/><BR/>We will never be able to see the world exactly through their eyes unless we happened upon a time machine that would zap us back a few centuries. Until that time we can only - as you said - continue to debate and do the best we can. History is nothing if not something to be learned from.<BR/><BR/>@Brad: Thank you very much. It's a reminder that no one can deny is vital to remember from time to time.<BR/><BR/>@Tom: I sincerely appreciate the commendation. I have recently started looking more into the life of Hamilton, as a matter of fact. What a fascinating and brilliant man he was! I am enjoying learning more about him and hope to feature him in an upcoming post.<BR/><BR/>You have a point - bigger is not always better when you point it out in a sense such as that. I think that the video in the previous post - Religion and the Public Square by Brad - had some very sound discussions about religion and government/public life. I really came away with a different perspective on things, and like the idea that less religion as opposed to no religion - and less radicalism on *both* sides (secular and skeptic) - would benefit us all.Shanna Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03916290538975113238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24934644244027750292008-10-23T15:47:00.000-06:002008-10-23T15:47:00.000-06:00Ace post, Shanna, especially that a) we are each u...Ace post, Shanna, especially that a) we are each unique and complex---except for ultra-orthodoxy, no two of us share <I>identical</I> beliefs. b) that our views change over a lifetime [see Alexander Hamilton] and c) the Founders weren't unanimous, even on the constitution and Bill of Rights.<BR/><BR/>I disagree with Phil that the fundamental questions change for man, although "progress" in philosophy or technology may lead to them being asked in new ways. And I think it's easy to put a pangloss that "we can work with our opponents in creating a bigger, better, and greater shared ideal." As we find with religious doctrine and the resulting proliferation of sects in Christianity, bigger is not better, and it actually obscures the foundations of agreement. We around here kind of poke through the weeds and branches around the Founding, in search of the trunk.<BR/><BR/>Thx for the HT.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-82061194252975788112008-10-23T11:18:00.000-06:002008-10-23T11:18:00.000-06:00"The truth is none of the great men that founded t...<EM>"The truth is none of the great men that founded this country can be pigeon-holed into a one-way street of beliefs and ideals. Likely they were as complex as the rest of us and even their own views would have changed throughout their lifetimes."</EM><BR/><BR/>Well said, Shanna. We would all do well to remember this.Brad Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65230055123876175792008-10-23T08:03:00.000-06:002008-10-23T08:03:00.000-06:00Seems like a great article for the provocation of ...Seems like a great article for the provocation of some different discussion on the subject of American mindsets during the Founding Era..<BR/>.<BR/>I do not believe we can compare the way the Founding Fathers worked out their thoughts with the way we do that today.<BR/>.<BR/>We live in a very different culture than that theirs and one separated by nearly 250 years--seven or eight generations...<BR/>.<BR/>There is a global deluge of information coming down on even the least educated among us that is far, far beyond what our Fore-bearers could even have imagined. Included in that deluge are cultural changes such as transcendentalism, the Civil War with its impact on America's religious values, electrification, the invention of the telegraph, electronic recording devices, the telephone, radio, and television--just to mention the most obvious. Major changes affect our thinking and, finally, we live in post modern times.<BR/>.<BR/>The last impact, post modernism, comes down on us like a sledge hammer and just about obliterates our ability to be discerning about how the Founders thought about anything. <BR/>.<BR/>But, we can and must try--that's what we can do. Even if we were able to interview each Founder on a one-on-one basis, I doubt we could agree on what we might learn. Because we are so <I><B>individually</B></I> separate from one another; which is--after all--the mark of our post modern condition. I think we must continue to debate and uncover every grain of history so we can learn how it is that we have come to be who it is that we are coming to be. Otherwise, we're up for the grabs of whatever ideology comes along that strikes our fancy.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.com