The Founders, Religion, and Context
Jonathan Rowe on Oct 11th 2006
I’ve repeatedly shown on this website how when it comes to religion, the “Christian Nation” crowd (David Barton et al.) when they manage to quote the Founders accurately, often grossly distort the context of the quotations in attempting to prove their myth.
Jefferson and Adams, because they called themselves Christian, are particularly easy to quote out of context. I’ve noted a number of times how the Christian Nation crowd offers the following quotation from Adams, which, when plucked from context, does seem on point for their side: “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity.” However, when one reads the rest of Adams’s letter to Jefferson from which the quotation is taken, a different meaning emerges:
Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.
Looking primarily to Enlightenment philosophers, including the works of atheist, Hume, or radical French philosophes, Rousseau and Voltaire, in support of “the general principles of Christianity”? Adams clearly doesn’t mean what the Christian Nation crowd wants him to mean.
So in the last few weeks of debating this issue on various threads, and watching Dr. Gregg Frazer debate on this particular thread, I’ve been struck by how often the other side utterly misunderstands the context in which our Founders spoke, and otherwise tries to split hairs and read things into their words which they did not say or mean. Some of the misunderstanding seems innocent enough. Some of it, however, seems willful or at least willfully viewing this issue with blinders on, refusing to give up on an idea — that the US Founding was Divinely inspired by your understanding of God — when the evidence clearly seems to indicate otherwise, or asks more questions than it answers (for instance, if God divinely inspired the Founding and intended America to be a “Shining City on the Hill” founded by Christians for Christians, why did He choose so many theological unitarians-universalists or Infidels to play such prominent, indeed the most important, roles?).
The following is another quotation, taken from Adams’s Dec. 25, 1813 letter to Jefferson, the Christian Nation crowd often offers to prove Adams was a “devout Christian”:
“I have examined all, as well as my narrow Sphere, my streightened means and my busy Life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the World. It contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have seen: and such Parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future investigation.”
Usually the Christian Nation crowd ends the quotation with the sentence which ends “in the World.” The next sentence indicates that Adams has a “philosophy” and that parts of his “philosophy,” he can’t reconcile with the Bible, already giving us a clue that Adams doubts the Bible is inerrant or at least complete.
But when one reads the entire letter and understands it in full context, one sees that Adams’s understanding of “Christianity” and the “Bible” appears quite unorthodox. Indeed, nothing about that above quotation, understood in its proper context, contradicts anything I have argued about Adams. Adams’s quotation simply means that Reason and Revelation largely agree (a tenet I’ve long noted about Adams and the other key Founders’ religious creed). In that same letter, Adams also clearly asserts that Reason supersedes Revelation, indeed makes Revelation entirely unnecessary and that most (perhaps all) world religions contain the same Truth as Christianity and are thus valid ways to God. Adams’s writings, in their entirety, demonstrate that he was a universalist also in the sense that he denied eternal damnation. Plus, he was a theological unitarian who thought the Bible contained errors, amendments and suspected fabrications.
Although Adams’s December 25, 1813 letter to Jefferson is not (as far as I am aware) online in full, I blogged about it and made similar points in this past post. But, Dr. Frazer on this thread, recently posted an excellent summary of the entire letter and its context. An excerpt from Dr. Frazer’s post thus follows:
Re the Adams Hindu quote: the only way FOR YOU to understand Adams’s quote is to “ASSUME” what he clearly did not mean (if one knows the context — which I do). In context, he has just said: “Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. … no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.” [the latter refers, of course, to the Bible and its inferiority to philosophy] He goes on to say: “Philosophy looks with an impartial eye on all terrestrial religions” and then talks about the Bible further. About the Bible, he then says: “such parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future investigation.” He then talks about Joseph Priestley (his spiritual mentor) and about various religious systems he and Priestley have encountered, including Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Plato, the Brahmins, and then the Shastra — and the quoted commentary on the Shastra. A paragraph later, he says “these doctrines, sublime, if ever there were any sublime, Pythagoras learned in India, and taught them to Zaleucus and his other disciples.” Earlier in the same letter, he said: “The preamble to the laws of Zaleucus, which is all that remains, is as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s ….” This is critical because Priestley is Adams’s (& Jefferson’s) spiritual mentor and because the laws of Zaleucus were supposedly handed down to pagans from Athena! SO YOU SEE THAT HE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED CHRISTIANITY IN THE COMPARISON! Further, if a set of laws supposedly handed down from Athena 600 years before the birth of Christ can be considered “Christian” — what real meaning does the term have for Adams? See, you have to find out what THEY meant by the terms they used.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
First off, I want to meake it clear that I do not speak for the Christian Nation crowd (whoever they are). I only speak for myself. And, as a budding historian, my only interest is reading the historical record correctly.
Jon: “Usually the Christian Nation crowd ends the quotation with the sentence which ends “in the World.” The next sentence indicates that Adams has a “philosophy” and that parts of his “philosophy,” he can’t reconcile with the Bible, already giving us a clue that Adams doubts the Bible is inerrant or at least complete.”
No he doesn’t Jon. All he says is that he will put off to some time in the future further investigation of those parts.
Rich
Actually Rich, I believe it does. As I see it, the very fact that Adams would state that the matter needs further investigation implies that he considers there to be at least the possibility of biblical errancy (viz, that he doubts that the Bible is inerrant). IOW, that some “Parts” in the Bible may indeed not reconcile to his “little phylosophy” and therefore be in error, as determined by reason (which is how Adams comes by his “little phylosophy” and which, according to Adams and many of his peers, trumps revelation where they do not agree).
Hi Bill
“Actually Rich, I believe it does. As I see it, the very fact that Adams would state that the matter needs further investigation implies that he considers there to be at least the possibility of biblical errancy”
No it doesn’t Bill. Adams could just have well implied that his ‘philosophy’ needs to be looked at. After all, Adams refused to say the Bible was in error. Since he refused to make that statement, how can we?
Frankly, I think Adams simply did have enough information to make a decision one way or the other, either for his philosophy or for the Bible.
Rich
OK Jon let’s deconstruct this puppy.
To begin with I do have a full copy of the letter. It was one of many in The Adams-Jefferson Letters. I have it right in front of me.
Dr. Frazer: “Re the Adams Hindu quote: the only way FOR YOU to understand Adams’s quote is to “ASSUME” what he clearly did not mean (if one knows the context — which I do). In context, he has just said: “Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. … no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.”
Me:, That’s pretty broad statement. I think Adams thought it was too broad also because he attached a qualifier to the statement. This qualifier was not included in Dr Frazer’s quote (at least not the first part). The next sentence after ‘man’ reads “When this revelation is clear and certain, by Intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supercede it.”
The revelations of philosophy cannot be superceded only so long as their revelations are “clear and certain.” According to Adams, there are only two ways to ascertain if a philosophical revelation is “clear and certain”. The first is through Intuition. That is, truths that are self-evident without the use of reason. The other is through Induction. This is the primary method of science. Thus truth is revealed through experience and observaton. This means, like Locke and Hume, Adams was Empiricist.
This qualifier also helps explain why Adams rejected the Nicene Trinity. It probably violated his concept of ‘intuition’. Just like one plus two doesn’t equal four, it is self-evident that one plus one plus one does not equal one. I think if you go back and look at his statements about the Trinity you’ll see that this is how he approaches the Trinity issue.
Dr. Frazer: [the latter refers, of course, to the Bible and its inferiority to philosophy] He goes on to say: “Philosophy looks with an impartial eye on all terrestrial religions” and then talks about the Bible further.”
Me: Parenthetically Dr. Frazer slips in the assertion that Adams thought the Bible inferior. Of course, this is turned on its head by Adams’ next statement: “I [Adams] have examined all, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means and my busy life would allow me; and the result is, that the Bible is the best book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen: and such parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little philosophy I postpone for future investigation.” So what Dr. Frazer left out showed that Adams believed the Bible to be superior to all other books that would include philosophical books. I don’t input any motive on the part of Dr Frazer. It is quite easy, in the enthusiasm of a thesis, to miss things. To continue,
Dr. Frazer: About the Bible, he then says: “such parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future investigation.” He then talks about Joseph Priestley (his spiritual mentor) and about various religious systems he and Priestley have encountered, including Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Plato, the Brahmins, and then the Shastra — and the quoted commentary on the Shastra.
Me: This is not quite accurate. Priestly may have been his spiritual mentor but at the time of this letter Adams was extremely irritated with Priestly. Evidently Priestly had written some uncomplimentary things about Adams. The letter is quite critical of Priestly and his book.
Dr. Frazer: A paragraph later, he says “these doctrines, sublime, if ever there were any sublime, Pythagoras learned in India, and taught them to Zaleucus and his other disciples.” Earlier in the same letter, he said: “The preamble to the laws of Zaleucus, which is all that remains, is as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s ….” This is critical because Priestley is Adams’s (& Jefferson’s) spiritual mentor and because the laws of Zaleucus were supposedly handed down to pagans from Athena! SO YOU SEE THAT HE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED CHRISTIANITY IN THE COMPARISON! Further, if a set of laws supposedly handed down from Athena 600 years before the birth of Christ can be considered “Christian” — what real meaning does the term have for Adams? See, you have to find out what THEY meant by the terms they used. –
Two points: the first a very minor one. All through the letter Adams is making jabs at Priestly like: “Why has he not given us a more satisfactory account….”; “Priestly barely mentions (so and so) ….”; “Priestly has over looked ….”; “Why has not Priestly mentioned …”; ‘Priestly ought to have done…”; “Priestly ought to have given us …”; Priestly aught to have told us …” With each of these jabs are examples of the failure of Priestly and his book. Perhaps, since Adams was no annoyed with Priestly that the comment “The preamble to the laws of Zaleucus, which is all that remains, is as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s”, was a just another jab at Priestly. I’m certainly not going to say that is what Adams meant. But it is something to think about.
Let’s discuss another of Dr. Frazer’s paragraphs.
Dr. Frazer: “if a set of laws supposedly handed down from Athena 600 years before the birth of Christ can be considered “Christian”
Me: This is a technical correction. Adams didn’t say the laws were “Christian”. He only mentioned the preamble. The laws themselves evidently were quite severe. What few we have seems to indicate they were more severe than those in the Old Testiment. As to the preamble, most scholars question their authenticity. [Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, v3, page 1308] But let’s look at Adams’s sentiment and use Dr. Frazer’s admonition to understand the terms. He says the preface is as ‘orthodox’ Christian as Priestly’s. In my little dictionary it says ‘orthodox’ as “conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true.” Thus the ideas contained in the preamble conforms to Christian ideas. But I wouldn’t read too much into that. Adams didn’t have to high opinion of the Christianity of his day. But also notice Adams didn’t say these ideas were ‘Christian’ only that they conform to Christian ideas. Adams knew that these ideas developed hundreds of year prior to the birth of Christ. He would not make the mistake of calling them Christian.
Dr Frazer: “what real meaning does the term have for Adams?”
Me: I guess it means for Adams that some of the values propounded by Christianity had existed prior to the birth of Christ. That hardly seems very profound. I think Dr. Frazer is trying a bit too hard.
So, what does this letter to Jefferson say. For one thing it say he was extremely agitated with Priestly. Second, and this was most surprising for me, Adams is an Empiricist. Not as extreme as Hume but an Empiricist none the less. As an Empiricist, he wouldn’t believe reason to be foundational. Truth had to be either self-evident or established through experience and observation. Those things which cannot be experienced or observed would lie outside the realm of philosophy. This was Locke’s opinion. It is for this reason that he excluded religion as a subject for investigation. I would image that Adams then thought the truths of the Bible to be true unless they were scientifically invalidated. They were based on authority (God) although a chance of error through human interaction. On this last point he wasn’t very sure. While living during the Enlightenment, evidently he was not a Rationalist. This means it is not likely that he would approach the study of the Bible using reason alone. Does this mean Adams was a Theistic Empiricist? Hummmmm?
By the way, Hume had nothing good to say about people who tried to approach Religion through reason. But then he didn’t have much good to say about Religion either.
Rich
I don’t see how. Adams told us pretty clearly exactly what he meant: “It (the Bible) contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have seen: and such Parts of it (again, the Bible) as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future investigation.”
The sentence structure reveals Adams to be indicating that what he’s postponing for future investigation is the Bible, not his philosophy.
It is, of course, possible that Adams, upon this future investigation, would in fact revise his philosophy in favor of the Bible. However, the mere fact that he indicates that it’s the Bible he wishes to investigate further seems to me a strong indication if not outright confirmation that he’s no inerrantist.
No one is arguing that Adams held that the Bible was in error, merely that it could be. Accepting the mere possibility that the Bible could be in error is incompatible with the view of Biblical inerrancy. Therefore, Adams must be an errantist. Errantists don’t hold that the Bible is in error, merely that it could be.
“It (the Bible) contains more of my little Phylosophy than all the Libraries I have seen: and such Parts of it (again, the Bible) as I cannot reconcile to my little Phylosophy I postpone for future investigation.”
What’s under question? It’s ‘parts of the Bible”. Why? Because it doesn’t fit with my philosophy. What to do? Postpone researching the question for future investigation. Why doesn’t he come out and say “I think parts of the Bible may be in error.” Here are some suggestions. He probably doesn’t have enough information to say even that. Perhaps he is misunderstanding those parts of the Bible. Upon further investigation he may find his philosophy to be in error. And, yes perhaps the Bible is in error. Those are all valid reasons why he would put off investigating those parts of the Bible. To pick out one of those reasons and say “that is the reason” lacks any foundation in that sentence. He wants to look at those parts of the Bible sometime in the future. That’s all we know. That’s all the structure of the sentence gives us.
As to whether Adams is a ‘errantist’ or not, I think we can be safe in saying he was probably an errantist. Elsewhere he wrote that he wished he had the originals from which the Bible was written to see if any errors had crept in.
Rich
I’m on the way home, but feel the need to make a couple of comments on Mr. Knapton’s remarks — I’ll try to elaborate later.
Re Adams’s qualifying phrase: I left it out because it is irrelevant to the point I was making — that Adams considered the Bible (”subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles”) to be inferior to philosophy (OK, “clear and certain” philosophy). I don’t see how including that phrase changes the meaning.
Re Adams’s comment about the Bible being the best book: Mr. Knapton is correct — I should not have left that statement out. I did so in order to avoid muddying the waters — requiring a lot of explanation — when it, again, doesn’t fundamentally change what Adams was saying. But, here we go: he declares the Bible “the best book in the world,” but that doesn’t change the fact (as he has just asserted) that it does not supersede philosophy. Indeed, he says it is the best because it contains more of his philosophy than any other — not because it is inspired or infallible — because it agrees with him! Then, having established that the Bible does not supersede philosophy and having determined that it is the best book BECAUSE
I’m on the way home, but feel the need to make a couple of comments on Mr. Knapton’s remarks — I’ll try to elaborate later.
Re Adams’s qualifying phrase: I left it out because it doesn’t change the meaning and is irrelevant to the point I was making — that Adams considered the Bible (”subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles”) to be inferior to philosophy (OK, “clear and certain” philosophy). I don’t see how including that phrase changes the meaning.
Re Adams’s comment about the Bible being the best book: Mr. Knapton is correct — I should not have left that statement out. I did so in order to avoid muddying the waters — requiring a lot of explanation — when it, again, doesn’t fundamentally change what Adams was saying. But, here we go: he declares the Bible “the best book in the world,” but that doesn’t change the fact (as he has just asserted) that it does not supersede philosophy. Indeed, he says it is the best BECAUSE it contains more of HIS philosophy than any other — not because it is inspired or infallible — but because it agrees with him! Then, having established that the Bible does not supersede philosophy and having determined that it is the best book BECAUSE it “contains more of my little philosophy” than any other, he says that there are parts which he cannot reconcile to his philosophy — which means they’re wrong! They cannot supersede philosophy and what is best is HIS philosophy.
Re Adams being upset with Priestley: he was very critical of a PARTICULAR BOOK written by Priestley in this letter — but that doesn’t change the fact that he shared Priestley’s theology. Five months before this letter, he called Priestley “this learned, indefatigable, most excellent and extraordinary man” and said he thought Priestley had “one of the greatest” souls. He went on to bemoan his falling out with Priestley and to say that “no man was more capable or better disposed to answer” his “thousand, a million questions” than was Priestley. In the beginning of the letter we’ve been discussing, he also says about his personal problems with Priestley: “I forgive it all.”
So, he had some personal problems with Priestley and was sometimes critical of BOOKS by Priestley — but what KIND of books and WHY? He is critical of Priestley’s books which were anthologies of belief systems (”Doctrines of Heathen Philosophers, Compared With those of Revelation” and “Comparison of the Institutions of Moses With those of the Hindoos, and Other Ancient Nations”) because they were produced in haste (when Priestley was dying) and were, therefore, incomplete. He never expresses any disagreement with Priestley where theology is concerned. SO, when he says that the preamble to the laws of Zaleucus is “as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s” — that does, indeed carry significance.
It is significant because Adams considered Priestley’s version of Christianity (”primitive” or “true” “uncorrupted” Christianity) to be true Christianity. So, to say that something is “as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s” IS to say that it is equivalent to Christian teaching. Mr. Knapton is correct to the extent that Adams did not specifically call it “Christian.” My point was that expressed by Mr. Knapton — that Adams meant that they conform to Christian ideas; I was not suggesting that Adams was ignorant enough to consider them “Christian” historically — but that he did consider them Christian theologically. Since they were handed down by a pagan godess 600 years before Christ’s birth, there is, apparently, nothing distinctive in Christianity — nothing new under the sun. That was my point, which I apparently inadequately expressed in my haste.
AND, Adams doesn’t just say that “some of the values propounded by Christianity had existed prior to the birth of Christ” — he says the preamble is “AS ORTHODOX” [my emphasis] as Priestley’s version of Christianity — to which he subscribed.
I was supposed to leave an hour ago.
Finally, methinks Mr. Knapton doth make too fine (and convenient) a distinction where Adams’s phrase “by intuition or necessary inductions” is concerned. Mr. Knapton sees a significant distinction between the scientific method and rationalism — largely (apparently) because Hume did. But look at what Adams says in context. The “revelation” that is made “clear and certain, by intuition or necessary inductions” is “Philosophy, which is the result of REASON” [my emphasis]. Adams’s concept of intuition and of induction did not fit neatly into Mr. Knapton’s distinctions, which strike me as distinctions without a difference. For example: what faculty does one use to make inductions, if not reason? Adams (like most of the Founders) regularly jumps back and forth between “experience” and “reason” as bases for conclusions.
An additional observation: Adams elsewhere said of the Bible: “It is the most republican book in the world, and THEREFORE I will still revere it.” [my emphasis] {Feb. 2, 1807 letter to Benjamin Rush}
The point is that Adams said different, sometimes contradictory, things about the Bible. He even acknowledged that SOME of the Bible was the Word of God (separating him from deists); but the one constant is that he did not accept or revere it because it was inspired or infallible. There was an element of consistency: he approached it with HIS REASON as the determining factor and hailed it TO THE EXTENT THAT IT AGREED WITH HIM/HIS VIEWS.
Dr. Frazer: “He never expresses any disagreement with Priestley where theology is concerned. SO, when he says that the preamble to the laws of Zaleucus is “as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s” — that does, indeed carry significance.”
Thanks for the background info. So Adams is chastising Priestly for slighting Zaleucus when the ideals found in the preamble mirror the values in Priesley’s own version of Christianity. Since Adams never expresses any disagreement with Priestly’s version of Christianity, they must be Adams’ version of Christianity also. But all we have is this slender assumption that Adams and Priesley’s Christianity are the same. Adams may have no problem with Priesley’s Christianity and still have values not expressed by Priestly. So to assume that the preamble mirrors Priestly Christianity does not necessarily mean that it mirrors Adams’ Christianity.
Correlations have been found between values expressed in the New Testament with those of the much older Old Testament. I suppose you can find core Christian values in any number of other cultures. The all seem to spring from the same needs. Interesting but hardly significant. Medieval theologians and philosophers certainly would not object to that idea. For them, natural law, found among all people, would have similarities because the well-spring of those laws is God. God gave man reason and this ‘God given reason’ would lead to similar laws all over the world.
Dr. Frazer: “Adams (like most of the Founders) regularly jumps back and forth between “experience” and “reason” as bases for conclusions.”
Thus what you are saying is that both experience and reason are foundational for Adams. And to support that you provide the quote “Philosophy, which is the result of reason.”
During the Enlightenment, two ideas of the acquisition of knowledge clashed for supremacy. One group stated that reason is foundational. These were the continental rationalists like Descartes and Leibniz. Others said sense was. Locke and Hume were in this group. Descartes and the gang became known as Rationalists. Locke and his homeboys were known as Empiricist. It was Locke who asserted that knowledge was obtained only two ways: Intuition and Induction. Induction begins with sense. Intuition and Induction are two technical terms used by Locke as he expounds his philosophy of Empiricism. When Adams uses the terms ‘Intuition and Induction’ as requirements to establishing philosophical clarity he is referencing the two technical terms Locke uses for gaining knowledge. He is essence is saying “I’m an Empiricist not a Rationalist.” Remember, Rationalists claimed that reason, not the senses are foundational.
Once we understand that Adams considers himself an Empiricist we can then understand how he uses the term ‘reason’ in the above quote. Since philosophy is the love of or search for knowledge, philosophy is concerned with producing knowledge. For an Empiricist, the first step in the production of knowledge is sense data. He collects sense data but sense data is not knowledge. This sense data needs to be meditated upon. That is, it needs to be reviewed by reason. It is only after is has been reviewed by reason can sense data be converted to knowledge. Unlike the Rationalists who thought reason to be foundational, the Empiricists viewed reason as a means to an end. It is the means by which sense data is converted to knowledge. When he said “Philosophy, which is the result of reason” He is saying that philosophical knowledge is the result of reason working on sense data. Like you said, you need to know how Adams uses these terms.
So, why is knowing Adams was an empiricist significant? Without sense data reason cannot be used. That’s why Hume wrote that it was ridiculous to try to use reason with religion. Of course he thought religion itself was ridiculous. Locke took a more understanding approach to religion. Locke:
“But Thirdly, there being many things wherein we have imperfect notions, or non at all; and other things, of whose past, present, or future existence, by the natural use of our faculties, we can have no knowledge at all; these, as being beyond the discovery of our natural faculties and above reason, are, when revealed, the proper matter of faith.”
In other words, matters of faith are not the proper venue for the use of sense and reason (our natural faculties). There is no sense data that reason can use. But the Empiricists were not the only ones to assert that religion lay outside their ability to study. The Rationalists also believed faith was not the proper subject of philosophy. Descartes:
“But it must meanwhile be remarked that I do not in any way there treat of sin–that is to say of the error which is committed in the pursuit of good and evile, but only of that which arises in the deciding between true and false. And I do not intend to speak of matters pertaining to the Faith or the conduct of life, but only of those which concern speculative truths, and which may be known by the sole aid of the light of nature [reason].” … “Above all we should impress on our memory as an infallible rule that what God has revealed to us is incomparably more certain than anything else; and that we ought to submit to the Divine authority rather than to our own judgement even though the light of reason may seem to us to suggest, with the utmost clearness and evidence, something opposite.”
It seems to me that the Enlightenment was about separating religion from the proper study of philosophy: the physical world. I believe that the experimental sciences sprang from the Empiricists and the mathematical sciences from the Rationalists.
Rich
It seems to me that we have more than a “slender assumption” that Adams shared Priestley’s theology.
We have Adams’s testimony that “no man was more capable or better disposed to answer” his “thousand, a million questions” than was Priestley. And again: “Oh! that Priestley could live again, and have leisure and means! An inquirer after truth, who had neither time nor means, might request him to search and re-search for answers to a few questions.” And again: “I have fifty more questions to put to Priestley.” Why does he constantly look to Priestley for the answers to his theological questions? Because he disagrees with him and thinks Priestley is wrong?
We have Adams regularly referring to “the corruptions of Christianity,” which was a distinctive Priestley term (and title of Priestley’s multi-volume set of theology). [e.g. Nov. 15, 1813 & Nov. 4, 1816]
We have Adams telling Jefferson that he was in fundamental agreement with Jefferson on religious matters [July 16, 1814 & July 17, 1813 & July 18, 1813] and Jefferson’s affirmation that Priestley is “the basis of my own faith.” [Aug. 22, 1813]
To clarify, I did not supply the quote “Philosophy, which is the result of reason” in order to support the comment that “Adams (like most of the Founders) regularly jumps back and forth between “experience” and “reason” as bases for conclusions.” I offered that quote in support of Adams’s emphasis on reason. I gave no support for the previous statement — it was just an observation which I did not attempt to prove.
I am quite familiar with the development of philosophy during the period. I think Mr. Knapton is making a circular argument in this case. He argues, on the basis of a single phrase, that Adams was an empiricist — not a rationalist. Then, he explains away Adams’s emphasis on reason as actually being evidence that he was not a rationalist — because we know he was an empiricist!
Mr. Knapton also makes the mistake of suggesting that there was only one type of rationalist and of implying that, since SOME rationalists thought religion outside the realm of reason, ALL kinds of rationalists must have the same view. In fact, there were (and are) many kinds of rationalists. The kind of which I write were THEISTIC rationalists and, by definition, not in the same camp as Descartes (who is not an archetypal rationalist, because there is no such thing). One who considers reason to be the final arbiter and the standard by which everything must ultimately be judged is also a type of rationalist. The key American founders were that type.
Adams’s affirmation of God’s providence was based on the assertion that “we have reasons enough to establish a rational belief that all these things are disposed by unerring wisdom, justice, and benevolence.” He said of the Puritan form of government that it “was founded in revelation and in reason too.” He said of miracles: “The reasoning of Phylosophers, having nothing surprizing in them, could not overcome the force of Prejudice, Custom, Passion, and Bigotry. But when wise and virtuous men commisioned from heaven, by miracles awakened mens attention to their Reasonings, the force of Truth made its way, with ease to their minds.” He made a rational case for belief in some miracles. He credited his “natural reason” (along with Cicero & Jesus) for his views on the after-life. He found the idea that God would create man only to condemn the majority of men to eternal punishment to be irrational and, consequently, rejected it and became a universalist. On that subject, he more than once asks to be “persuaded” and “convinced” by his opponents. He admired the “primitive purity and simplicity” of Jesus’ teachings (as did all followers of Priestley’s teaching) as “the religion of reason.”
His rejection of the Trinity was a result of its seeming irrationality — even if God Himself told him it was true on Mt. Sinai. [There, he bases his argument on mathematics, which Mr. Knapton categorizes as the realm of Rationalists.] In expressing his rejection of belief in the coming millennium, he told Jefferson: “Our faith may be supposed by more rational arguments.”
Finally, I have suggested that Adams’s view of Christianity was not true Christianity, but his own version (which he shared in most matters with Jefferson and Priestley). Consider what he says elsewhere about Christianity. He lists various groups who “were united” under “the general principles of Christianity.” Included among those so united were “Deists, Atheists, and Protestants ‘qui ne croyent rien’ [who believe nothing].” He went on to claim that he could “fill sheets of quotations” in favor of these principles with statements from a number of well-known sources, including two very notorious atheists: Hume and Voltaire. [June 28, 1813 letter to Jefferson] Orthodox Christians of his day (or ours) did not believe that deists, atheists, and those who believe nothing were united with true Christians on any principles of Christianity!
So, for Adams, the general principles of Christianity were something to which deists, atheists, and those who believe nothing all subscribed. But Christianity (according to Adams) did NOT include central Christian doctrines (which he did not believe) such as the Trinity and the Incarnation and justification by faith and the atoning work of Christ and eternal punishment for sin and ……. He said: “I believe … that all good men are Christians.” Christians do not believe that, either.
I’m sorry, but again, in reading my post, I realized I left something out regarding the “slender assumption” argument.
Another evidence we have that Adams shared Priestley’s theology is the fact that he actually expresses the same views as Priestley on virtually every significant theological question/doctrine! Whether it is the Trinity, the atonement, the Incarnation, original sin, the relative legitimacy of Scripture, eternal punishment for sin, or almost any fundamental doctrine one cares to name — Adams holds the same view as Priestley. We can be confident that he holds to the same theology because he, in fact, expresses beliefs which are the same!
I got caught up in demonstrating what Adams said about Priestley and forgot to come back to this central point.
Dr. Frazer: “I am quite familiar with the development of philosophy during the period. I think Mr. Knapton is making a circular argument in this case. He argues, on the basis of a single phrase, that Adams was an empiricist — not a rationalist. Then, he explains away Adams’s emphasis on reason as actually being evidence that he was not a rationalist — because we know he was an empiricist!”
It is statements like this that give me the impression that Dr Frazer’s understanding of 18th-century philosophy is weak. Once again, Adams did not say philosophy can not be supersede by religion Adams said only that Philosophy which is clear and certain cannot be superseded. The implication is that philosophy which cannot be proved to be certain cannot challenge religion. Then he went on to say there are only two ways in which philosophy can be proved to be certain: intuition and induction. It is not a coincidence that these are the two ways Locke says that truth can be discovered. You see, a Rationalist like Descartes or Spinoza would say certainty is established by ‘thought’ (reason) and ‘extension’. It is here that Dr Frazer became confused. I didn’t explain away Adams use of reason. What I did was to explain how Empiricists, like Adams and Locke, would use the term reason with regards to philosophy. Anyone who understood Empiricism would understand how Empiricists viewed reason and its relationship to philosophy.
Dr Frazer: “We have Adams’s testimony that “no man was more capable or better disposed to answer” his “thousand, a million questions” than was Priestley”
Great, we can now say that Priestly’s and Adams’ understanding of Christianity are very similar. Let’s go back to Zaleucus and his preamble. We can say that the ideas contained in the preamble mirror SOME of the ideas found in Priestly’s and Adams’ Christianity. But not all. While I have not yet read the preamble, I will bet money it does not contain Priestly’s and Admas ideas of the Trinity, the atonement, the Incarnation, original sin, eternal punishment for sin, etc. If we go to the Old Testament we can pull out ideas which mirror some of the ideas of Christianity. If we look at Buddhism or Hinduism we will be able to discover ideas which mirror some of the ideas of Christianity. So, other than berating Priestly for leaving out the preamble because it contains ideas which mirror some of Priestly’s ideas, it doesn’t say anymore than if he had left out Buddhism or Hinduism. Again, this is hardly significant for understanding their views of Christianity.
Dr Frazer: “His rejection of the Trinity was a result of its seeming irrationality — even if God Himself told him it was true on Mt. Sinai. [There, he bases his argument on mathematics, which Mr. Knapton categorizes as the realm of Rationalists.]”
Adams did not base his rejection on mathematics. (By the way, Adams used arithmetic. While a subset of mathematics, it’s like saying because my son can add, subtract, divide and multiply he’s a CPA.) Adams based his rejection of the Trinity on self-evidence (intuition). He used arithmetic to show how the rejection was self-evident.
To be continued
Rich
“we have reasons enough to establish a rational belief;” “was founded in revelation and in reason too.;” “The reasoning of Phylosophers;” “by miracles awakened mens attention to their Reasonings;” “He made a rational case for belief in some miracles.;” “He credited his “natural reason;” “He found the idea that God would create man only to condemn the majority of men to eternal punishment to be irrational;” He admired the “primitive purity and simplicity” of Jesus’ teachings (as did all followers of Priestley’s teaching) as “the religion of reason.”
With these quotes from Adams, it is apparent that what Dr Frazer is talking about is not the Philosophy of Rationalism which developed during the Enlightenment. Rationalists believe that reason is the underlying basis for how mans comes to know the material world around him. Empiricists believe that our humans senses are the underlying basis by which man comes to know the world. This is why both reject the use of reason as a means to know that religious truth. Faith, unlike the world, has no material.
Dr. Frazer is using the term reason as the mental process by which we solve problems. When it is apparent that this process has been used, we call it rational. Religion of reason is religion which can be understood by this process called reason. If it can be understood this way we call this religion rational.
Western thought has pretty much abandoned the Philosophy of Rationalism. In that battle, empiricism won (until later but that’s another story). We no longer see reason as the underlying basis by which we come to know the world. We tend to now see reason in the way the empiricists see reason, as a process. In their case, reason is the processes by which sense date is transformed into knowledge. Reason is no longer foundational. Rational does not mean a thing is true. It only means it has gone through this process. What determines if the truth is discovered is the premises we hold when we begin the process of reasoning. For example. If we say that all objects have a natural level and they will seek that level if released (as Aristotle claimed), we can say that the statement is rational. Given the original premise that all objects have a natural level, it is reasonable to surmise that the object will stop when it reaches that level. It has correctly followed the process we call reason. What Newton said was that the original premise was not correct. An object does not have a natural level. Objects have mass and mass attracts mass. What changed was not the process but rather the original premise. Thus what is rational does not depend on the process but rather the original premise. Thus a thing does not become true because it has gone through this process. The process only discovers truth because the premise it began with was true. Like the old saying goes, “garbage in, garbage out.”
We all use this process. Aristotle used it. Augustine of Hippo used it. Thomas Aquinus used it. Luther used it, Calvin used it. Descartes used it. Locke used it. Adams was not special because he used reason. And his use of reason had nothing to do with the Enlightenment. He was human and endowed with access to this process.
This is where Dr Frazer gets confused. He sometimes uses reason as a process and sometimes as foundational. He does so, evidently, without being able to see the distinction. The above examples, that he gave, show the process called reason at work. However, when he says something is correct because it is based on reason, he is using reason as foundational. Things are not correct because they are based on a process. They are correct based on the premise that the process must work with. If I begin with the premise that the Bible is inspired I will come to very different conclusion using reason than I will if I begin with the premise the Bible is not inspired. Reason cannot tell me if the Bible is inspired or not. Reason requires a beginning premise. Given no premise, reason has nothing to work with. So when Dr Frazer says Adams came to a particular conclusion because of reason, he is correct. But the conclusion itself depended on the original premise he started with. In this respect, Adams simply did what we all do. The fact Adams came to conclusions using reason is hardly earthshaking. We all do every day of our lives. This hardly represents something new as a result of the Enlightenment.
To be continued: Adams
Rich
I am so pleased that Mr. Knapton is here to instruct me in the field of my doctoral studies and to clear up my confusions.
Of course, part of the lesson would have been unnecessary if Mr. Knapton had noticed that I said that I wasn’t talking about the specific kind of rationalism that he continually talks about — Descartes’s Rationalism (note that I have not capitalized it in any of my posts). He persists in trying to prove what I myself assented to from the beginning! Perusal of academic, discipline-specific dictionaries (not Webster’s) and encyclopedias will yield several entries under “rationalism” — not just that of Descartes.
Regarding Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin: the difference between them and the theistic rationalists (of which Adams was one) was that they believed that reason was a supplement to revelation — that it was a useful tool, but one which must bow to revelation when the two conflict. They assumed the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture and that reason must be faulty if it seems to contradict revelation. Aquinas said, for example, that any apparent discrepancy between reason and revelation is “traceable to the imperfection of the human mind.”
Adams and the theistic rationalists saw things from the reverse angle. If there was a discrepancy between reason and revelation, they considered revelation to be flawed or illegitimate. It is one thing to stress the importance of reason in understanding revelation; it is quite another to suggest that reason ought to determine what counts as revelation. Aquinas believed “it is foolish for man to reject God’s revelation on the ground that it seems at some points to contradict man’s natural knowledge.” That is precisely what the theistic rationalists did.
Adams denied that the Old Testament was legitimate revelation from God because it did not comport with what he considered to be rational. Jefferson rejected the New Testament other than parts of the Gospels as a “dunghill” because his reason told him that teachings and miracles could not be true. He removed references to miracles and the supernatural and Jesus’ claims to be God from the Gospels because he considered them to be irrational.
Re: the preamble and Christianity: the point that Mr. Knapton persists in avoiding (or failing to understand) is that Adams declared that the preamble to a pagan law code was AS ORTHODOX AS CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY [again, since he compared it to Priestley's, which is what he considered to be correct, uncorrupted Christianity] — and that no actual Christian (then, or today) would make such a statement. Using Mr. Knapton’s examples: no actual Christian would say that Buddhism or Hinduism is AS ORTHODOX AS CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY — whether they share some ideas or not. That’s the very simple point.
What I’ve said all along is that what are “earthshaking” are the conclusions to which Adams came — not that he used his reason to come to them. The process by which he came to them, though, is not the process used by 18th-century American Christians — or true Christians today. For them, revelation and faith trump reason; not the other way around. So, beliefs such as the Virgin Birth and the Incarnation and the atonement become rational in light of a revelation which is presumed to be legitimate and true. For the theistic rationalists, their own reason was the ultimate standard for religious belief — for Christians, the Bible was (and is) the ultimate standard.
[...] The Declaration and its metaphysical claims were remarkably pluralistic for the time, as were the Founders. This shouldn’t surprise given the Founders’ personal “theistic rationalist” creed posited that most if not all religions, even the Pagan and Eastern ones, taught the same basic Truth as Christianity and were thus valid paths to God (The end of Gregg Frazer’s Ph.D. thesis notes how the personal faith of the Founders connects with the ideas of our Founding documents). Indeed I can quote John Adams and company where they note Nature’s God is found within not only Christianity, but Hinduism, Pagan Greco-Romanism, Native American spirituality, etc. (See this post where Dr. Frazer examines one of John Adams’s letters to Jefferson.) [...]
[...] Here is Dr. Gregg Frazer’s commentary on the letter: In context, he has just said: “Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. … no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.” [the latter refers, of course, to the Bible and its inferiority to philosophy] He goes on to say: “Philosophy looks with an impartial eye on all terrestrial religions” and then talks about the Bible further. About the Bible, he then says: “such parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little philosophy, I postpone for future investigation.” He then talks about Joseph Priestley (his spiritual mentor) and about various religious systems he and Priestley have encountered, including Zoroastrianism, Confucianism, Plato, the Brahmins, and then the Shastra — and the quoted commentary on the Shastra. A paragraph later, he says “these doctrines, sublime, if ever there were any sublime, Pythagoras learned in India, and taught them to Zaleucus and his other disciples.” Earlier in the same letter, he said: “The preamble to the laws of Zaleucus, which is all that remains, is as orthodox as Christian theology as Priestley’s ….” This is critical because Priestley is Adams’s (& Jefferson’s) spiritual mentor and because the laws of Zaleucus were supposedly handed down to pagans from Athena! SO YOU SEE THAT HE SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED CHRISTIANITY IN THE COMPARISON! Further, if a set of laws supposedly handed down from Athena 600 years before the birth of Christ can be considered “Christian” — what real meaning does the term have for Adams? [...]