tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post564757785963524840..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: More On Non-Trinitarians & ChristianityBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-26568379221698973332009-04-05T19:06:00.000-06:002009-04-05T19:06:00.000-06:00England, 1689.England, 1689.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-35199809953905739112009-04-05T18:41:00.000-06:002009-04-05T18:41:00.000-06:00.The theory of Divine Right was abandoned in Engla....<BR/><I>The theory of Divine Right was abandoned in England during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89.</I><BR/>.<BR/>So? Are you trying to say that governments were formed in which the people had the authority over the king or whatever else the blighter might be called.<BR/>.<BR/>Name one of any scale other than the U.S.A. before July 4, 1776.<BR/><BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-46865586726753044152009-04-05T17:44:00.000-06:002009-04-05T17:44:00.000-06:00The theory of Divine Right was abandoned in Englan...The theory of Divine Right was abandoned in England during the Glorious Revolution of 1688–89.<BR/><BR/>We know this is true because the Wikipedia says so.<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings<BR/><BR/>Still, once again, Jefferson and Madison get all the credit, and religious forces get pushed to the side. But that's not how it happened.<BR/><BR/>http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2008/09/scholarly-malpractice-and-founding.html<BR/><BR/>Actually, we are discussing exactly what you say we should be.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-14411471348974598522009-04-05T16:44:00.000-06:002009-04-05T16:44:00.000-06:00.TOM: "The arguments for liberty had a decidedly r....<BR/><B>TOM:</B> "<I>The arguments for liberty had a decidedly religious cast---Jonathan Mayhew's famous sermon, 'endowed by their creator,' etc.</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>Most certainly.<BR/><BR/>Christianity itself was heavily influenced the the religiosity of the time--everything was. And, that never stopped at the Founding; but, the shift continued and it wavers back and forth. Once again, some of the religious are making strong efforts to get behind the wheel. One might say there OFT is a bartonosity in the weeds.<BR/>.<BR/>It seems you really aren't reading what I've written.<BR/><BR/>The religiosity didn't go away on July 4, 1776; but, the divine right of kings died in that moment and this novus ordo seclorum came into existence.<BR/><BR/>The world was turned upside down. And, the tools to set up a balance for society was brought into being that never existed before.<BR/><BR/>If we focus on the results of the Founding we might learn more about the purposes the Founders had in mind. They were--at least some of them--geniuses. Men likeThomas Jefferson, James Madison, and even Thomas Paine. They knew what they were doing. Is that a possibility or is that off topic here?<BR/>.<BR/>YOU seem to be the decider.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-25328696543978906122009-04-05T15:26:00.000-06:002009-04-05T15:26:00.000-06:00Yes, the environment at the Founding was to park d...Yes, the environment at the Founding was to park dogma [ideology?] at the door. Still, that there's only one God who is providential and to whom man must answer is also a dogma that everyone agreed upon.<BR/><BR/>Which gets to my problem with your assertion, Phil. The arguments for liberty had a decidedly religious cast---Jonathan Mayhew's famous sermon, "endowed by their creator," etc.<BR/><BR/>And the revolution in 1600s England was rife with religiosity.<BR/><BR/>If you're saying the bad parts like witch trials and religious persecution are bad, who could disagree? But there's definitely a baby-and-bathwater thing going on here.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-86662651235745693142009-04-05T14:35:00.000-06:002009-04-05T14:35:00.000-06:00Tom: "`Ideology' in 2009 is considered a bad thing...Tom: "`Ideology' in 2009 is considered a bad thing"<BR/><BR/>I think that association is a result of those who elevate their `ideology' over reason. We could refer to such as dogma, but I think the point would be lost on many.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55523308501435274982009-04-05T14:18:00.000-06:002009-04-05T14:18:00.000-06:00.Your term, snark, meant something in the 1940s wh....<BR/>Your term, snark, meant something in the 1940s when I first heard it. There were snarks and there were snarfs.<BR/>.<BR/>I don't look down my nose at religiousness.<BR/>.<BR/>Religiosity, in my mind, is a characteristic of a group of people--not an individual.<BR/>.<BR/>My point about the culture of religiosity that I claim was broken in the coup d'etat of the American Revolution is, exactly that. The Founders created a nation in which the people would never be ruled by a culture of religiosity again. <BR/>.<BR/>To me, I see religiosity meaning that religion pervades and informs every institution of society more so than any value of any other institution informs the institution of religion. That creates an imbalance that causes everything to go awry.<BR/>.<BR/>My original statement was meant to be little more than the greatest compliment I could pay to men like our Founders.<BR/>.<BR/>But, you had to make a hullabaloo out of it.<BR/>.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-55374524974245731592009-04-05T14:01:00.000-06:002009-04-05T14:01:00.000-06:00Basically, when you writeBut, it is that America's...Basically, when you write<BR/><BR/><I>But, it is that America's Colonial period was steeped in a culture of religiosity.</I><BR/><BR/>You're saying America was "excessively" religious at the time of the Founding. By YOUR own definition.<BR/><BR/>I disagree. I think without religion, it would have turned out like the French Revolution, very ugly indeed.<BR/><BR/>As for your snark that I "represent" some sort of self-appointed authority, it's the modern Voltaires who look down their noses at religiousness who are the new orthodoxy. I'm the rebel here.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18836524525568681502009-04-05T07:32:00.000-06:002009-04-05T07:32:00.000-06:00.Like I said, Tom, you like to put people on. And,....<BR/>Like I said, Tom, you like to put people on. And, apparently, it makes you feel good on the inside.<BR/>.<BR/>But, so what?<BR/>.<BR/>You are completely confusing the issue I have put on the table. No where have I meant to demean the ideas of religion; although there is more than enough evidence to do that. My point was not that religiosity is an exaggeration of religious piety, etc. But, it is that America's Colonial period was steeped in a culture of religiosity. <BR/><BR/>And, you have put out a lot of effort here to discredit such an hypothesis as though it were an unworthy question. Since when is it an error to question authortiy--especially the self appointed type you represent?<BR/>.<BR/>Civilization had been on a steady down hill race to armageddon with religion growing more and more influential in the life of every soul ever since the Crucifixion. <BR/><BR/>The question is begged at this site as to whether America was Created to be a Christian Nation or not.<BR/><BR/>Why cannot you take my question seriously? Is it too child like for you? What?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-24741104815204536642009-04-04T21:56:00.000-06:002009-04-04T21:56:00.000-06:00Pinky, once one resorts to the dictionary, they've...Pinky, once one resorts to the dictionary, they've gone to the adversarial thing and abandoned communicating.<BR/><BR/>Your jabberwocky is wonderful and meaningful and I especially like your slithy toves. I couldn't agree more.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54837134309414378942009-04-04T21:51:00.000-06:002009-04-04T21:51:00.000-06:00Ah, joint inquiry is the bomb. Just hanging out, k...Ah, joint inquiry is the bomb. Just hanging out, kickin' it, not playing courtroom drama. Thx, Jon.<BR/><BR/><I>...but have to go outside of the Bible to find natural rights, what was central to the American Founding.</I><BR/><BR/>Yes and no. An emphatic yes, though, and supported by Wilson here. Also the "no" is supported by Wilson here. The question of "human rights" is why I started studying not only the Founding, but "religion" and then the Founding too. Much more discussion is needed---it's the crossroads of humanity in 2009.<BR/><BR/>I'll add this---from your own Wilson quote:<BR/><BR/><I>nor do they [the scriptures] specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another</I><BR/><BR/>This is our push vs. pull in 2009. Even if liberty is Biblically mandated---which I think the Founders, or at least the revolutionaries like Mayhew stated with confidence---then James Wilson's words are exceedingly wise.<BR/><BR/>If the Bible says <I>x</I> is good and also says <I>y</I> is good, how shall we tell which one is gooder?<BR/><BR/>Wilson clearly---explicitly---says here that the Bible can't tell us. Reason---right reason, I must add---is our only recourse.<BR/><BR/><I>nor do they [the scriptures] specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another</I><BR/><BR/>If we submitted our contemporary moral dilemmas not merely to reason, but to what James Wilson undoubtedly referred to as "right reason," well, that would be a starting point for discussion across our cultural divide.<BR/><BR/>I think that in 2009, we do not recognize the existence of "right reason." Subjectivity and even relativism claim primacy under the guise of "neutrality."<BR/><BR/>Contra James Wilson.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64070885028406039102009-04-04T21:32:00.000-06:002009-04-04T21:32:00.000-06:00Tom: "But how much "religiousness" is excessive?"W...<I>Tom: "But how much "religiousness" is excessive?"<BR/><BR/>When a bit more diminishes the goal of religion, it is excessive ... no?<BR/><BR/>I think this is the problem with strict/literal adherence to any ideology.</I><BR/><BR/>Ben, I find this a good answer, although the term "ideology" is once again pejorative.<BR/><BR/>"Ideology" in 2009 is considered a bad thing.<BR/><BR/>I think even Kristo, who in his own words is more "orthodox" than I've ever , has argued---and I think well---that the Protestant influence on the Founding was in opposition to "orthodoxy."<BR/><BR/>Especially when viewed in terms of clerics. America would figger out its own way both politically and theologically. That's why the Founders or their forefathers fled Europe in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Or, to be historically accurate, why they got the charters for their colonies and hired the boats to put the colonists on.<BR/><BR/>[Gotta do these boring qualifications sometimes so people don't gnaw at your ankles.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-18680662093424463632009-04-04T20:26:00.000-06:002009-04-04T20:26:00.000-06:00.Tom sez, "Sock it to me!".Generally I get my best....<BR/>Tom sez, "<I>Sock it to me!</I>"<BR/>.<BR/>Generally I get my best word definitions at One Look. There are almost always a dozen or more dictionaries shown where you can check out almost nay word. There are 19 different dictionaries for religiosity.<BR/>.<BR/>Almost every source I've checked out shows the definition I'm using to be the first if not only meaning of religiosity.<BR/>.<BR/>When we add the suffix, -osity, to any word or term, we generally mean to imply that the item is full of whatever is indicated. So, if I were to use the term, tomvandykeosity, in a way to describe some person or activity, the audience would know that there was a complete fullness of the quality being referenced.<BR/>.<BR/>Ninteen sources are better than one.<BR/>.<BR/>But, you do like to put people on. Makes you feel good inside?<BR/>.<BR/>Strange.<BR/>.<BR/>Anyway, to define a society as a culture is to say that the main characteristicc of that society rests on a certain characteristic. In this case, it was religion. <BR/><BR/>Are you trying to refute that point?Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-15463415628545926172009-04-04T20:04:00.000-06:002009-04-04T20:04:00.000-06:00Tom,I think my reading makes textual sense as well...Tom,<BR/><BR/>I think my reading makes textual sense as well. As I wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>[My] textual understanding of Wilson's writings that is smack dab in between the "reason trumps revelation" and the "revelation trumps reason" standard. And that is the "revelation does not trump reason" (and perhaps we could also say "reason does not trump revelation") standard.<BR/><BR/>In other words, a wash. Reason and revelation are BOTH elevated to the same "highest" of standards.</I><BR/><BR/>Though I do get your point. I see Wilson's Works almost as playing ping pong between reason and revelation which could lead to out of context quotes for each side.<BR/><BR/>I see him as limiting the Bible<BR/><BR/>"Where the latter give instructions,..."<BR/><BR/>Elevating the Bible<BR/><BR/>"...those instructions are supereminently authentick."<BR/><BR/>And then limiting the Bible:<BR/><BR/>"But whoever expects to find, in them, particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find."<BR/><BR/>Though I think I agree with your overall point you made in your last post. I see him as describing the Bible as "incomplete" specifically when it comes to making a blue print for government, and not necessarily other areas of life.<BR/><BR/>Again notice what I emphasize in the relevant passage:<BR/><BR/>"[The Scriptures] generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions. They present the warmest recommendations and the strongest inducements in favour of virtue: they exhibit the most powerful dissuasives from vice. <I>But the origin, the nature, and the extent of the several <B>rights and duties they do not explain;</B> nor do they specify in what instances one right or duty is entitled to preference over another. They are addressed to <B>rational and moral agents, capable of previously knowing the rights of men,</B></I> and the tendencies of actions; of approving what is good, and of disapproving what is evil. <BR/><BR/>"These considerations show, that the scriptures support, confirm, and corroborate, but do not supercede the operations of reason and the moral sense."<BR/><BR/>As I read the back drop of the Revolution and subsequent Constitution, there were Tory preachers arguing from tradition and sola-scriptura AGAINT the idea of a right to revolt or even the idea of "rights of man" at all. Jonathan Boucher comes to mind who noted the idea of political liberty was alien to the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Wilson here seems to confirm that the idea of natural rights or "rights of man" are not found within the Bible, that, we can have our Bible, but have to go outside of the Bible to find natural rights, what was central to the American Founding.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-4610823393277041512009-04-04T19:47:00.000-06:002009-04-04T19:47:00.000-06:00Tom: "But how much "religiousness" is excessive?"W...Tom: "But how much "religiousness" is excessive?"<BR/><BR/>When a bit more diminishes the goal of religion, it is excessive ... no?<BR/><BR/>I think this is the problem with strict/literal adherence to any ideology.bpabbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17047791198702983998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-33543936895037305642009-04-04T19:37:00.000-06:002009-04-04T19:37:00.000-06:00Give it up, Phil. You keep ignoring the first def...Give it up, Phil. You keep ignoring the first definition, and there are other dictionaries that make the distinction clearer.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, since "excessive" lies at the heart of your term, you're still using a term as a cover for your subjective judgment. But I'll stipulate your use of the second definition. You're right, I'm wrong.<BR/><BR/>But how much "religiousness" is excessive? You decline to answer and keep sending me links to a dictionary. Make your point and let's cut to the chase. Peace, bro.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-57540316733475757182009-04-04T19:32:00.000-06:002009-04-04T19:32:00.000-06:00"Downplays the Bible's importance"? Just the oppo..."Downplays the Bible's importance"? Just the opposite. "Supereminently authentick."<BR/><BR/>I was going to leave off there, but, if you're willing, let's play along with each other, like they did in Plato's dialogues. They were all good sports, and made arguments as opposed to arguing. Let's see where it leads.<BR/><BR/>Imagine Wilson's addressing his further remarks to the hardcore Holy Rollers, <I>sola scriptura</I>-ists. "But whoever expects to find...etc."<BR/><BR/>How shall man set up his government, then? The Pilgrims, for instance, tried to set up a system modeled after the Bible. Didn't work out all that well.<BR/><BR/>Therefore, the American system that established its baseline not at the Bible---and specifically keeping in mind the zillion interpretations of it---but at "natural law." <BR/><BR/>Now Wilson explicitly writes that the "natural law" flows from the same "adorable source" as the scriptures, so they cannot be in conflict.<BR/><BR/>Still, liberty as we know it was still a developing concept in man's history, and America was Ground Zero. Pluralism, nonsectarianism, as opposed to papacy---or Pilgrimism or Puritanism---where only one interpretation of the Bible was the "true" one.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, one couldn't look to the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, for a template of government, since pluralism and Judaism were incompatible. <BR/><BR/>Although this is not true in 2009! Judaism's diversity of sects has a ring of "protestantism" about it, eh? A There's quite a gulf between a Reform Jew and an Orthodox. Yet only a cleric wouldn't see them all as Jews.<BR/><BR/>You see where I'm going with this. American pluralism was indeed aBiblical. To return to Wilson, he's certainly arguing for a non-<I>sola scriptura</I> political solution.<BR/><BR/>But he does not deny the Bible as comprehensively compatible with "right reason."<BR/><BR/>No, he does not "limit" the Bible. Not at all, not in the least, no how, no way.<BR/><BR/>He acknowledges that it cannot provide a complete blueprint for the new American society, and also acknowledges that it was never intended to, an argument against any Holy Rollers who would argue otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Look, Jon, I'm just trying to emulate you-know-who and read James Wilson "as he understood himself," and I have no other agenda besides that.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm not saying I'm right about Wilson here, but my provisional argument at least reconciles the "subsumes" quote with the "supereminently authentick" quote, which you haven't managed to do as yet.<BR/><BR/>This is at the heart of playing along with each other, and at the heart of Socrates, Plato and all them other guys.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-70327842329378041562009-04-04T19:18:00.000-06:002009-04-04T19:18:00.000-06:00.Here is what Merriam Webster on-line has to say a....<BR/>Here is what Merriam Webster on-line has to say about the word:<BR/><BR/><BR/>religiosity<BR/>One entry found.<BR/><BR/>Main Entry:<BR/> re·li·gi·ose Listen to the pronunciation of religiose<BR/>Pronunciation:<BR/> \ri-ˈli-jē-ˌōs\ <BR/>Function:<BR/> adjective <BR/>Etymology:<BR/> religion + 1-ose<BR/>Date:<BR/> 1853<BR/><BR/>: religious ; especially : excessively, obtrusively, or sentimentally religious<BR/>— re·li·gi·os·i·ty Listen to the pronunciation of religiosity \-ˌli-jē-ˈä-sə-tē\ noun<BR/><BR/>-------------------------<BR/><BR/>One definition--no first or second meaning, just one.<BR/><BR/>Here's the link. <BR/><BR/>http://www.onelook.com/?w=religiosity&ls=aPhil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-5893183799752215632009-04-04T17:58:00.000-06:002009-04-04T17:58:00.000-06:00"My best reading of "supereminently authentick"---..."My best reading of "supereminently authentick"---."<BR/><BR/>The problem I'm having here is what's written around those words "supereminetly authentick." That phrases that precede and succeed it appear designed to limit the Bible's influence.<BR/><BR/>"<B>Where the latter give instructions,</B> those instructions are supereminently authentick. <B>But whoever expects to find, in them, particular directions for every moral doubt which arises, expects more than he will find.</B>"<BR/><BR/>What does he mean "where the latter give instructions?" He further explains the Bible's incompleteness with the succeeding phrase, "But whoever expects to find,..." And he also downplays the Bible's primary importance by stating things like<BR/><BR/>"They generally presuppose a knowledge of the principles of morality; and are employed not so much in teaching new rules on this subject, as in enforcing the practice of those already known, by a greater certainty, and by new sanctions."<BR/><BR/>Thus, however much I see Wilson limiting "reason and the moral sense" I also see him limiting the Bible.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-43516006033765926752009-04-04T17:40:00.000-06:002009-04-04T17:40:00.000-06:00You're missing my point, Jon. My best reading of ...You're missing my point, Jon. My best reading of "supereminently authentick"---and you've provided no other---is Wilson believes that revelation is [supereminently] reasonable.<BR/><BR/>And if you'll forgive me for not digging up the quote again, Wilson has a suspicion against reason, as it's corruptible by our passions. He places his faith in the innate "moral sense," the "law written on our hearts," etc.<BR/><BR/>When Wilson speaks of reason favorably, he's undoubtedly referring to "right reason," which in his milieu still carries a theological sense.<BR/><BR/>I believe there's a Locke quote that says he trusts scripture and where his reason seems to be in conflict, he postpones the matter at hand. I can't remember where to find it, but as a Christian-Lockean, Wilson is surely echoing here.<BR/><BR/>[Wilson does explicitly differ with Locke's Essay on Human Understanding, since an innate "moral sense" is contra Locke's thesis.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-80103484383084702492009-04-04T17:03:00.000-06:002009-04-04T17:03:00.000-06:00Now, you haven't proposed an alternate reading of ...<I>Now, you haven't proposed an alternate reading of "supereminently authentick" that comports with YOUR Wilson. But it comports fine with a religious Wilson.</I><BR/><BR/>Tom, I agree that I haven't yet fully argued a "reason trumps revelation" meaning to Wilson. More on that later. (Personally I have faith that the evidence is there in Wilson's private writings, none of which we have so far uncovered.)<BR/><BR/>However I HAVE proposed a textual understanding of Wilson's writings that is smack dab in between the "reason trumps revelation" and the "revelation trumps reason" standard. And that is the "revelation does not trump reason" (and perhaps we could also say "reason does not trump revelation") standard.<BR/><BR/>In other words, a wash. Reason and revelation are BOTH elevated to the same "highest" of standards.Jonathan Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04079637406589278386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-73987901273836686152009-04-04T16:56:00.000-06:002009-04-04T16:56:00.000-06:00I used the first definition of the word, you depen...I used the first definition of the word, you depend on the second, so I don't know who "everyone" is.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, you're simply creating a term for your personal opinion. The key word is "excessive," which is a purely subjective judgment. I asked you plainly what you consider "excessive;" you declined to respond.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I hate arguing sophistries, but I hate it even worse when people insist on employing them.<BR/><BR/>_________________<BR/><BR/>Jon, let's look at it another way, employing the "close reading" method of you-know-who.<BR/><BR/>We have two statements in <I>apparent</I> conflict, the "subsume" quote and the "supereminently authentick."<BR/><BR/>We cannot discard the latter by countering with the former. We must look to harmonize them both with Wilson's body of thought. [Illustrating the danger of quote-grabbing.]<BR/><BR/>Now, Wilson seems a man of religious devotion. He likes Hooker and has a Christian understanding of Locke. He speaks of natural law and scripture coming from "the same adorable source," an affectionate term for God, and indeed, the God of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Now, you haven't proposed an alternate reading of "supereminently authentick" that comports with YOUR Wilson. But it comports fine with a religious Wilson.<BR/><BR/>Now, if we examine the "subsumes" quote it's in total harmony with a Locke "Reasonableness of Christianity" argument: Don't worry, all you skeptics, there's nothing in the scriptures that requires you to abandon your reason. We do not claim that scripture "subsumes" your reason---the occasion will not arise.<BR/><BR/>Completely Hooker/Thomistic, and we have seen Wilson's admiration of Locke. All in harmony with the larger body of Wilson's work.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-54873487986150322022009-04-04T14:51:00.000-06:002009-04-04T14:51:00.000-06:00.I had to use the "term", super religiosity, to cl....<BR/>I had to use the "term", super religiosity, to clear things up for you. Everyone else knew what I mean at the first drop. I was quite clear both in words and context.<BR/>.<BR/>Do you take pills or something?<BR/>.<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83931497685093264282009-04-04T14:18:00.000-06:002009-04-04T14:18:00.000-06:00Actually, Pinky, you're seeing the other hand, den...Actually, Pinky, you're seeing the other hand, denying what is plainly there!<BR/><BR/>Yes, superreligiosity clears things up. Your use of religiosity as carrying "excess" makes your new term contentious, not neutral.<BR/><BR/>Jon, all the stuff you're quoting is consistent with the Thomistic system of reason and revelation. Locke says something similar.<BR/><BR/>Now, is Wilson arguing against a <I>sola scriptura</I> view that makes little place for reason? Damn right. Viewing his arguments as against <I>sola scriptura</I> accounts for your objections.<BR/><BR/>As for Jefferson, stipulated, altho again this would refer to his private writings. The "reason over revelation" meme is markedly absent from the public discussions of the Founding era.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-61909642083489393232009-04-04T11:26:00.000-06:002009-04-04T11:26:00.000-06:00.And by the way, we aren't done, by a longshot, wi....<BR/><I>And by the way, we aren't done, by a longshot, with the reason trumps revelation claim. </I><BR/>.<BR/>Not by a long shot is right!.<BR/>.<BR/>But, why do I see the invisible hand of religiosity laying heavy on what Wilson is saying if, as some claim, it wasn't there?<BR/>.<BR/>It seems to me that what Jon is pointing at here is all part of the struggle that must have been raging in the minds of so many of our Founders.<BR/>.<BR/>In fact, is seems to me that the Founding can be seen as a total revolution of Western Civilization--the world was turned upside down on July 4, 1776.<BR/>.<BR/>And, it was the break from being ruled by the power created by religiosity. Maybe I should write, super religiosity?<BR/>.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.com