Frazer Responds to Knapton
Jonathan Rowe on Sep 11th 2007
Gregg Frazer emailed me his response to Richard Knapton’s criticisms of Frazer’s Claremont article on theistic rationalism based on his Ph.D. thesis on the matter. The response is reproduced below. Let me take this moment to note that though I am the main presence on the Internet that endorses Frazer’s thesis — and clearly I’m a small player in the scholarly world — two giants in scholarship have endorsed Frazer’s work by name: One is historian Peter Henriques of George Mason University, a secular scholar, author of Realistic Visionary — a biography of George Washington — and one of Washington’s most well-respected scholars. The other is Gary Scott Smith, chair of the History Department at Grove City College and one of the most distinguished evangelical historians in the nation.
Frazer’s response follows:
This is the first chance I’ve had to respond to Mr. Knapton. I apologize for entering “the fray” so late.
First, as Jonathan has pointed out, there was not room in my Claremont article — which was, primarily, a book review of another man’s work — to present all of the evidence that Mr. Knapton says that I do not give. It is all there (in spades) in my 440-page dissertation, however. If he is really interested in the evidence, I encourage Mr. Knapton to read the dissertation.
Second, I define “natural religion” as: “a system of thought centered on the belief that reliable information about God and about what he wills is best discovered and understood by examining the evidence of nature and the laws of nature, which he established. While they were not synonymous, the primary expression of natural religion in the 18th century was deism.” Surely Mr. Knapton does not deny that deism or natural religion so defined existed in the 18th century — in the colonies.
Third, Mr. Knapton asserts that my statement: “Revelation was designed to complement reason” is “flat out incorrect.” To prove his claim, he quotes from a man who never lived in America and who died seventy years before the period about which I am speaking. Mr. Knapton does not quote any American, much less any American Founder. Believe it or not, the American Founders did not subscribe to everything that Locke said and did not share his view of what counted as legitimate revelation from God.
If Mr. Knapton wants all of the dozens of examples I’ve given to support my claim, he can get my dissertation — I certainly do not have the time or inclination to retype them all here. Hopefully, a couple of examples will suffice for those with an open mind. John Adams, in criticizing the belief of “hundreds of millions of Christians” in Christ’s millennial kingdom, says: “All these hopes are founded on real or pretended revelation. … Our faith [speaking to Jefferson] may be supposed by more rational arguments than any of the former.” [Sep. 24, 1821 letter to TJ] Adams also said: “Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. When this revelation is clear and certain, by intuition or necessary inductions, no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.” [Dec. 25, 1813 letter to TJ]
It couldn’t get much clearer than that!
Fourth, Mr. Knapton suggests that I came up with the term “theistic rationalism” and that, therefore, it did not exist as a concept. This is a specious argument. When Calvin was alive, preaching, and writing, no one referred to his theology as “Calvinism,” that is a term which was coined later to refer to his body of beliefs. “Amillennialism” was not used as a term in Augustine’s day (it was coined hundreds of years later to describe the beliefs held by Augustine and others ) — but no theologian or historian would deny that Augustine was amillennial. Examples abound because it is quite common for terms to be coined to sum up or represent movements and/or belief systems. That is what I’ve done and the fact that no one used the term does not change the fact that they held the beliefs. Without such terms, we would have to list all beliefs which are part of a system every time we tried to talk about the system!
Fifth, regarding the relationship between reason and revelation, Mr. Knapton is quite correct in pointing out that “from the time of Thomas Aquinas Christianity and reason had gone hand in hand.” If Mr. Knapton had read my dissertation, he would have seen that I specifically discussed Aquinas and the emphasis on reason in Christianity. The difference between the Thomistic approach and that of the theistic rationalists, however, is what one does when reason and revelation point to different conclusions. For Aquinas, revelation trumps reason at such points; for the theistic rationalists, reason trumps revelation — indeed, reason determines what counts as legitimate revelation from God.
As Daniel observed, Jefferson’s emasculation of the Gospels is indeed a classic example of deciding what is not (to Jefferson’s eyes) rational and physically removing it with scissors. Mr. Knapton suggests that Jefferson did not excise verses on the basis of apparent conflict with reason, but that he chose only to include the teachings of Jesus in his “version” of the Gospels. That is simply not true. “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth” [title is significant, too] begins with a historical account of SOME of the events surrounding the birth of Jesus (minus those which are supernatural/miraculous) — Jesus did no teaching before being born or as an infant. It ends with the death and burial of Jesus (minus the supernatural/miraculous elements) — Jesus did no teaching after dying or while He was being buried.
Furthermore — and here’s the critical part — Jefferson also excised parts of the TEACHING of Jesus; namely, those passages in which Jesus clearly claimed to be God!!! If he was simply trying to faithfully present the teachings of Jesus without the surrounding material, why did he include some of the surrounding material and NOT include all of the teaching???
Finally (on this point), we don’t have to speculate about what Jefferson intended to do — he talked about it and explained his purpose and method. I invite Mr. Knapton to investigate what he said.
Sixth, Mr. Knapton quoted one paragraph of mine and noted that 90% of the colonial population would agree with that particular belief of the theistic rationalists. I want to thank him for confirming my point in that section. I was attempting to show that theistic rationalism was distinct from deism and that Protestant Christianity was one of the three contributing elements to it.
Seventh, Mr. Knapton quotes my statement that the theistic rationalists believed that “most religious traditions are valid and lead to the same God” and then observes that “they did not see all religious moral codes as equal.” I did not say that they saw them all as EQUAL, I said that they saw them as VALID. So, he once again did a fine job of defeating a straw man argument.
Eighth, Mr. Knapton accuses me of “unintended sophistry” in pointing out that the theistic rationalists did not believe that Jesus was God and he suggests that there was “a strain of Christian thought” which taught that Jesus was subordinate to God. Methinks the sophistry is one the other foot, however. Mr. Knapton refers, apparently, to the Arian or Socinian heresies, which the church had declared to be heresies — and not Christian doctrine — centuries before. On page 10 of my dissertation, I have a chart which outlines the basic core beliefs of the Christian denominations in 18th century America as expressed in their own creeds, confessions, and catechisms. Every Christian denomination in 18th century America affirmed the deity of Christ and the Trinity as basic core Christian beliefs. Mr. Knapton’s suggestion might appeal to groups which came along later and who CLAIMED to be Christians, such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses; but it doesn’t stand up to 18th century scrutiny. There were, of course, those who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity (including the theistic rationalists), but they were considered “infidels” by 18th-century Christians.
If Mr. Knapton thinks that Christianity is “all about” Jesus being the savior of the world independent of His being God, then he and I have very different conceptions of what Christianity is “all about” — but, more importantly, he has a very different view than those we are discussing: 18th century American Christians.
Ninth, Mr. Knapton again conveniently changed what I said by dropping a critical word when he pointed out that standard Christian thought believes that “God reveals himself through nature.” What I said was that the theistic rationalists believed that “God PRIMARILY revealed himself through nature,” which is, of course, entirely different!!! That is not “standard Christian thought,” except, perhaps, in Mr. Knapton’s version of Christianity. Standard Christian thought is that God PRIMARILY reveals Himself in Scripture (revelation) and secondarily through nature.
Tenth, again, I could retype numerous quotes illustrating the fact that the theistic rationalists believed that only some revelation is legitimate. For example, I refer, again, to the example of Jefferson’s scissors, but also to his referring to the rest of the New Testament (other than the Gospels) as a “dunghill” (which was his favorite summation of them, repeated many times). Or his characterization of the non-Gospel authors as “pseudo-evangelists” who “pretended to inspiration.” He told Miles King that “your reason alone” is competent to judge whether revelation is legitimate and that “our reason at last must ultimately decide, as it is the only oracle which God has given us to determine between what really comes from him and the phantasms of a disordered or deluded imagination.” [Sep. 26, 1814 letter to King] Adams said of the biblical record of the Fall of man in Genesis that it “is either an allegory, or founded on uncertain tradition, that it is an hypothesis to account for the origin of evil, adopted by Moses, which by no means accounts for the facts.” [Feb. 1814 letter to TJ]
The rest of Mr. Knapton’s contribution is, apparently, criticism of Jonathan’s arguments — not mine — so I will leave that to Jonathan to answer.
I urge Mr. Knapton to do me the courtesy of reading my dissertation containing my entire argument and the evidence for it before dismissing it and/or criticizing the lack of evidence found in a few paragraphs of a book review.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
Standard Christian thought is that God PRIMARILY reveals Himself in Scripture (revelation) and secondarily through nature.
But what is Standard Christian thought? Everything that follows after Luther nails up his 95 Theses in 1517? Sola Scriptura? The Bible only? Faith alone saves? There were 1500-odd years of Christianity before that.
When the Evangelist (that would be “St.” Paul, for those who came in late) writes that the natural law is written upon the human heart, this speaks not at all to the Bible, which as we all know wasn’t even the Bible as we know it yet.
Therefore, I must disagree with Mr. Knapton’s fundamental theological proposition. He has it backwards. When the laws of nature and nature’s God are invoked, this includes human reason and the human heart, or else we’re all simply animals.
If one picks up a Bible after that, well, that’s another discussion.
Sorry, I meant “Mr. Knapton,” and not Dr. Frazer above. Please correct or delete. Thx.
Fixed it; but I don’t exactly get your point. Frazer is the one who argues:
Standard Christian thought is that God PRIMARILY reveals Himself in Scripture (revelation) and secondarily through nature.
GF: “Standard Christian thought is that God PRIMARILY reveals Himself in Scripture (revelation) and secondarily through nature.”
TVD: “But what is Standard Christian thought? Everything that follows after Luther nails up his 95 Theses in 1517? Sola Scriptura? ”
I initially had the same difficulty with this assertion. Paul certainly indicates that nature revealed God before scripture. However, he also argued that revelation gives us more essential truths than nature reveals. Nature may be primary in the sense of being first, but revelation has primary authority.
Aquinas also argued that God is revealed in nature and reason. I think his answer to the question, “What happens when reason and revelation conflict?, was that they do not and they cannot. The God of revelation is the God of nature and of reason. He went through some interesting mental gymnastics to harmonize reason and revelation. Of course, he also agreed that revelation shows us things that nature cannot.
It is worth noting that prominent Muslims engaged in the same project did admit contradictions between reason and revelation. They proposed two truths, each to be accepted while admitting contradiction.
I am not aware of any 18th century Orthodox Christian thinkers who would not insist that that reason and revelation can be harmonized. There were certainly some who did some heavy lifting to reconcile the two. Certainly there were rationalists who rejected aspects of revelation because it conflicted with reason. Were there 18th century Christians who explicitly rejected reason because it conflicted with revelation?
I was apparently confused about my confusion, then. I do get confused sometimes.
Dr. Frazer’s definition of “theistic rationalism” as “a hybrid, mixing elements of natural religion, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element,” presents its own problem, because Christianity (and Christian thought, whatever that may be**) are elided in the definition. No Christianity, no theistic rationalism, eh?
“Christian Deism” seems more descriptive: Deism implies a primacy of reason, and also a reticence about orthodox Christianity of some stripe or another. Still, “Christian” still implies Providence, the admissibilty of at least some portions of the Bible as divinely inspired and at least some affiliation with Christian philosophy.
After all, “theistic rationalism” certainly fits Tom Paine more than any other, and Paine was quite the outlier in the theological landscape of the Founding.
As large a gap as possible was left in between government and society’s theology to minimize conflict; however, a look at Tom Paine’s religion, one of reason and natural theology but shorn of Christianity, and its overwhelming rejection by America as a whole (save Jefferson, an outlier himself, if only for this) illustrates that only Dr. Frazer’s own idiosyncratic definition of “theistic rationalism,” not a plain reading of the term, accurately describes the landscape of the time.
“Do you think that your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens?” —Samuel Adams, to Paine
Paine, then, is our control in this experiment.
And so, the use of “PRIMARILY,” is not particularly helpful. Stuff like the divinity of Jesus Christ or the efficacy of the Genesis myth had no real role in the Founding. What must be asked is whether the Founding documents hold anything in conflict with scripture.
If not, what folks back then believed (and if they were like today’s Americans, most didn’t think about their beliefs very deeply either way***), is of academic interest, but of little probative value. The nation was founded with reason and revelation in harmony, not in small part by avoiding the areas where they might chafe.
If we may rehabilitate “PRIMARILY” on behalf of reason, it’s with the provision that revelation and the body of Christian thought still held veto power. Unless of course one wants to posit that the Founding was based on certain anti-Biblical principles, which I doubt Sam Adams and his ilk would have countenanced, and who most likely represent the Founding’s Joe Sixpack*.
(*And a fine sixpack you make even to this day, Samuel Adams. Cheers, and if there is a God, I’m sure He’s made a special place in heaven there for you.)
**What is Christian thought? When the Catholic Aquinas was writing, there weren’t even Protestants yet, let alone 57 varieties of ‘em. Why is he not Standard Christian thought? If we draw the evolutionary tree, surely he’s in the trunk, not a branch.
***“Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertain’d an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own natures, all the circumstances of things considered. And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favorable circumstances and situations, or all together, preserved me, thro’ this dangerous time of youth… —Franklin, Autobiography, Ch. 10
Sounds about right for most folks. The Bible seems quite reasonable, and mebbe it’s got a few angels flying around it. Never thought much about the Burning Bush or the Way the Truth and the Light stuff, though. But surely, Samuel Adams was a saint, and I’m surprised Squire Franklin didn’t move into his spare room.
“Christian Deism” — that’s the term David Holmes uses in his book The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, which I think is spot on in terms of categorizing their beliefs. I disagree that “theistic rationalist” would describe Paine. It’s generally understood that the difference between a “deist” and a “theist” is that the latter believes in an active personal God and the former does not. Many scholars have thus noted that Ben Franklin who at one point was a “deist” later became a “theist.” The “theistic” in theistic rationalism thus stands for the Founders’ belief in an active personal God, and the “rationalist” stands for the notion that, when in doubt, reason trumps.
“Theistic” is best used in contradistinction to “atheistic,” I think. The former term could take in Aristotle’s remote God, Paine’s generic yet still providential one, a Blind Watchmaker, and some or all of the Nine Billion Names of God.
Any ol’ thing, besides the abyss.
My problem with Dr. Frazer’s term of art “theistic rationalism” is that Christianity—theological or philosophical—is quite central to it by his own definition, yet he lives the middle undistributed. Strikes me as a bit squirrelly, or worse for a scholar, imprecise.
The “civil religion” of the Founding was not Paine’s, as we can see by the near-universal revulsion at the latter (even John Adams’, if you poke around a bit), although in the abstract, and at our great distance from their zeitgeist, it seems quite reasonable to characterize it as such.
“Theistic rationalism” is just too bloodless a term, in my view.
Tom Van Dyke wrote:
‘The “civil religion” of the Founding was not Paine’s, as we can see by the near-universal revulsion at the latter’
Thomas Jefferson managed to maintain his friendship with Paine. Did the other Founders avoid Paine because they shared the popular revulsion or becuase Paine was so vehemently slandered after his book critical of religion was published that they feared Paine’s unpopularity would carry over to themselves rather than vice versa?
No matter, eh?
In brief response to Mr. Van Dyke (I have little time at the moment):
“Theist” is BEST used in contradistinction to atheist, of course (as is anything to its “a-anything”), but that does not mean it is not a proper and descriptive term to distinguish the beliefs of the key Founders from deism. “Theism” is, by definition, belief in the existence of a God who is the creator and is transcendent, yet immanent in the world. As the Oxford English Dictionary says: “esp. Belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler of the universe, without denial of revelation: in this use distinguished from deism.”
The problem with “‘Christian Deism” as an appropriate term for the belief system that I’m talking about is that it was not a type/form of Christianity or deism. The term was chosen specifically to label a unique belief system and to distinguish this belief system from the other two.
Why MUST my term include “Christianity” simply because it was one of the elements which contributed to theistic rationalism? Why MUST a term include its elements? We use the term “dog” to describe a particular type of animal without including the elements which distinguish it from other animals in the term. We refer to “Thomistic” thought; we don’t refer to “Aristotelian-Christian-Thomas Aquinas” thought. We refer to the “Reformation;” we don’t refer to the “Sola Scriptura-Priesthood of all believers-justification by faith alone movement.”
Regarding the word PRIMARILY: if Mr. Van Dyke wants to include Aquinas as part of “standard Christian thought,” that does no damage to my statement. Aquinas also gave primacy to revelation, while emphasizing the value of reason. As Daniel pointed out, the idea is that revelation has primary authority — not that it came first chronologically. The context of the original sentence makes that abundantly clear (I thought).
Paine was a deist, not a theist; so “theistic rationalist” does NOT, in fact, fit Paine. [and my term becomes less "idiosyncratic"] Among other things, he denied the legitimacy of written revelation and he denied the immanence of God.
If my term appears imprecise to some, it might be due to lack of knowledge of the necessary (definitional) distinction between theism and deism or because the theism of the key Founders was not very precise, either. They scorned and rejected doctrines in general — and in particular, those doctrines which distinguished various types of theism from one another. For them, theism was the key — not sects.
As to the importance of theistic rationalism, I would a) invite Mr. Van Dyke to read the chapters of my dissertation in which I answer the infamous “so what?” question (a necessary part of any dissertation) and b) ask him why he’s expending so much effort debunking my thesis if he considers it unimportant.
By the way, deism was as much a critique of Christianity as a religion of its own. Jonathan Edwards (most renowned preacher of the day) dealt with deists firsthand and described them thusly:
“The Deists wholly cast off the Christian religion and are professed infidels. … they deny the whole Christian religion. … they own the being of God; but deny that Christ was the son of God, and say he was a mere cheat; … and they deny the whole Scripture. They deny that any of it is the word of God. They deny any revealed religion, or any word of God at all; and say that God has given mankind no other light to walk by but their own reason.”
Furthermore, the “bible” of deism, Elihu Palmer’s Principles of Nature, depicted Jesus as a “religious impostor,” “immoral,” “criminal” in conduct, and “an enemy to moral virtue.” According to John Leland (another contemporary of the period), most deists sought ways to “fix a stain upon” the character of Jesus.
Finally, deists rejected the incarnation, the Virgin Birth, original sin, miracles, the atonement, the resurrection, eternal damnation, and the Christian notion of faith.
Christianity and deism were antithetical belief systems and any attempt to syncretize them is nonsensical.
[...] Check out these thought provoking comments on Positive Liberty, by two learned scholars. First Dr. Gregg Frazer defends his terming the key Founders creed “theistic rationalism,” and answers why this system which is somewhere between Christianity and Deism, with “rationalism” as the trumping element, is not properly termed “Christian-Deism.” [...]
So why a response to a book review? It was all that Jonathan provided as a reference for Dr. Frazer’s views. Had Jonathan provided something more substantial, I would have referenced that. If Dr Fraser wishes to send me a digital copy of his thesis, that would be fine.
Dr Fraser: Second, I define “natural religion” as: “a system of thought centered on the belief that reliable information about God and about what he wills is best discovered and understood by examining the evidence of nature and the laws of nature, which he established. While they were not synonymous, the primary expression of natural religion in the 18th century was deism.
Ah yes, deism and natural religion. At the turn of the 18th-century a small group of thinkers, including the Earl of Shaftsbury, began writing about how natural philosophy (science) could be used to investigate the nature and workings of God. This was coined natural religion. Their approach was to replace Christianity with natural religion. It pretty much petered out around the middle of the 18th-century. It’s demise was helped out in no small measure by the writings of Joseph Butler and David Hume. Hume attacked the idea of using rational or empirical methods (science) to investigate religion. There was a flare-up of the idea in the early 19th-century but then died out completely.
Dr Fraser: Third, Mr. Knapton asserts that my statement: “Revelation was designed to complement reason” is “flat out incorrect.” To prove his claim…
Locke was not presented as ‘proof’ but rather as an example of how many thought about the relationship between revelation and reason.
Dr Fraser: If Mr. Knapton wants all of the dozens of examples I’ve given to support my claim, he can get my dissertation — I certainly do not have the time or inclination to retype them all here.
Surely Dr. Fraser has heard of “copy and past.” Oh well. He does provide two examples of what he believes are examples reason in support of revelation.
Dr Fraser: If Mr. Knapton wants all of the dozens of examples I’ve given to support my claim, he can get my dissertation — I certainly do not have the time or inclination to retype them all here. Hopefully, a couple of examples will suffice for those with an open mind. John Adams, in criticizing the belief of “hundreds of millions of Christians” in Christ’s millennial kingdom, says: “All these hopes are founded on real or pretended revelation. … Our faith [speaking to Jefferson] may be supposed by more rational arguments than any of the former.” [Sep. 24, 1821 letter to TJ]
Dr Fraser: Adams also said: “Philosophy, which is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of the Creator to his creature, man. When this revelation is clear and certain, by intuition or necessary inductions, no subsequent revelation, supported by prophecies or miracles, can supersede it.” [Dec. 25, 1813 letter to TJ]
Dr Fraser: It couldn’t get much clearer than that!
Oh really? This is an example of what I call “cherry picking,” picking out just that part of a reference that seems to support your argument and ignoring those parts which say the opposite. The first quote not only cherry picks but alters the whole sense of what Adams was saying. Here is what Adams actually wrote.
John Adams: Sir,–I thank you for your favor of the 12th instant. Hope springs eternal. Eight million Jews hope for a Messiah more powerful and glorious than Moses, David, or Solomon; who is to make them as powerful as he pleases. Some hundreds of millions of Musslemen expect another prophet more powerful than Mahomet, who is to spread Islamism over the whole earth. Hundreds of millions of Christians expect and hope for a millennium in which Jesus is to reign for a thousand years of the whole world before it is burnt up. The Hindoos expect another final incarnation of Vishnu, who is to do great and wonderful things, I know not what. All these hopes are founded on real or pretended revelation. [About the Greeks] You and I hope for splendid improvements in human society, and vast amelioration in the condition of mankind. Our faith may be supposed by more rational arguments than of the former.”
Adams is discussing the better times predicted by the Jews, Moslems, Christians and Hindues with the coming of a messiah-like figure. Adams then states that he and Jefferson also hope for “splendid improvements in human society. And, that his faith that things will improve is more rationally grounded than those predictions offered by relgion. This is hardly an example of reason in support of religion. By cherry picking and placing quotes which don’t belong together, he has Adams saying something Adams had never intended. Once you read the whole paragraph you realize this is reason in support of better times.
Dr. Fraser’s other quote turns out no better.
John Adams: “Priestly ought to have done impartial justice to philosophy and philosophers, Philosophy with is the result of reason, is the first, the original revelation of The Creator to his Creature, man. When this revelation is clear and certain, by Intuition or necessary induction, no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supercede it. Philosopy is not only the love of wisdom, but the science of the universe and its cause. There is, there was and there will be but on master of philosophy in the universe. Portions of it, in different degrees are revealed to creatures. Philosophy looks with an impartial Eye on all terrestrial religions. 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 philosophy than all the libraries I have seen: and such parts of it as I cannot reconcile to my little philosphy I postpone for future investigation.”
Adams writes that philosophy provided man with his first revelation of the world through the use of reason. For Adams, philosophy is wisdom and science. Or one might say knowledge and science. Now this knowledge and science does not favor one religion over another. In other words, it is not used to favor of one religion and not the others. Thus Adams is saying science (philosophy) is not used to buttress religious revelation. This is the exact opposite of what Dr. Fraser claimed. Those things concerning the world established by “intuition and induction” cannot be superceded by revelation of any kind. Those things of the spirit, established by revelation, is not the domain of science. I can’t help but think had Dr Fraser a better understanding of Locke he would had a better understanding of Adams. For what Adams writes here is exactly what Locke wrote a hundred years earlier.
Before we leave this quote, I think it fair to point out, when Adams references his own “little philosophy” it is derived from the Bible. According to the Adams, the Bible is the best book ever written. And, what parts seem not to be reconciled with his philosophy he will not reject out of hand but rather will be further investigated. I really dislike “cherry picking.”
Dr Fraser: Fourth, Mr. Knapton suggests that I came up with the term “theistic rationalism” and that, therefore, it did not exist as a concept. This is a specious argument. … Examples abound because it is quite common for terms to be coined to sum up or represent movements and/or belief systems.
Dr. Fraser then presents “Calvinism” and “Amillenialism” to buttress his argument. But we are not talking about coining terms. We are talking about concepts behind the terms which is something entirely different. Calvinism was a term which represent the collected concepts Calvin had presented concerning the Christian religion. Amilleniallism was a term which represented concepts about the denial of the actual existence of 1000 year after the return of Christ. Theistic rationalism is a term for which there is no conceptual correspondence in the time period Dr Fraser is writing. Along with the demise of deistic rationalism was rationalism itself. The empiricist (Locke, Berkely, Hume) had shown that truth cannot be discovered on the basis of reason alone. Information must first be established based on experiment and observation prior to the use of reason. The concept of theistic rationalism, which is supposed to have risen out of the ashes of deistic rationalism, has simply no foundation. Rationalism had lost out to empiricism.
Dr Fraser: Fifth, regarding the relationship between reason and revelation, … The difference between the Thomistic approach and that of the theistic rationalists, however, is what one does when reason and revelation point to different conclusions. For Aquinas, revelation trumps reason at such points; for the theistic rationalists, reason trumps revelation — indeed, reason determines what counts as legitimate revelation from God.
This use of the term ‘reason’ is a bit sloppy. Let’s bring some rigor to the subject. I obtained my definition of reason from “A Dictionary of Philosophical Terms and Names” Reason: The intellectual ability to apprehend [understand] the truth cognitively, either immediately in intuition, or by means of a process of inference. Inference: The relationship that holds between the premises and the conclusion of a logical argument, or the process of drawing a conclusion from premises that support it deductively or inductively.
Thus reason is a process by which truth is revealed. Revelation is an event by which truth is revealed. You can oppose an event to another event. Or, you can oppose a process by another process. But you cannot oppose a processes to an event. They are not the same type of thing. Not can a process determine what is legitimate. Reasoning requires a first principle which can only be accepted as true. It cannot be rationally determined. Since reasoning is a dialectical process, one begins with a first principle and a comparison happens between it and opposing ideas with a view to resolving the opposition. What is critical here is first principles. With any process the quality of what goes in determines the quality of what comes out (garbage in – garbage out). Dr Fraser, on the other hand, seems to want to use the term as a magic wand by which whatever you touch truth is revealed.
Dr. Fraser: Sixth, Mr. Knapton quoted one paragraph of mine and noted that 90% of the colonial population would agree with that particular belief of the theistic rationalists. I want to thank him for confirming my point in that section. I was attempting to show that theistic rationalism was distinct from deism and that Protestant Christianity was one of the three contributing elements to it.
In Dr Fraser’s vain-glorious rush for acceptance, he failed to note that it was my assertion these were common Christian thoughts. I was attempting to show one does not need ‘Theistic Rationalism’ to explain these sentiments.
Fraser: Seventh, Mr. Knapton quotes my statement that the theistic rationalists believed that “most religious traditions are valid and lead to the same God” and then observes that “they did not see all religious moral codes as equal.” I did not say that they saw them all as EQUAL, I said that they saw them as VALID. So, he once again did a fine job of defeating a straw man argument.
I think Dr Fraser needs glasses. I never claimed that he said that. Once again Dr Fraser has done a fine job of miss-quoting.
On point eight, evidently Dr Fraser also considers himself to be a doctor of divinity with the right to decide who is Christian and who is not. He points out that Arianism was declared heretical. It was. It was so declared by the Catholic Church. By this yardstick all the Protestant religions are heretics for the Catholic Church has declared them so. So in America we had heretical Protestants claiming other heretical Protestants heretics. Oh wait, Dr. Fraser claims those heretical Protestants who believe in the trinity are not really heretic, in spite of what the Catholic Church claims. So when it is in his favor he uses the authority of the Catholic Church but when it not in his favor he disregards the Catholic Church. His next step is to declare those who refused to accept the Trinity heretics and not Christians even though they themselves claim to be Christian. All this in the service of showing the founding fathers not to be Christian.
Dr Fraser further pontificates that the central tenant of the Christian faith to be the Trinity. Should you approach a Buddhist priest and ask him what the central tenant of the Christian faith he will immediately reply “the Trinity, of course.” What rot. The central tenant of Christianity, the thing that separates Christian from all other religions is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, the savior of the world. This is the “Good Word” the gospel. This is why Christians are called Christian. If it was the Trinity they would be called Trinitarians. The issue of the Trinity was an interdenominational issue among Christians. Their creeds, confessions, and catechisms defined what type of Christian they were. It did not define whether they were Christian or not. Good grief, this is Christianity 101.
Dr Fraser: Ninth, Mr. Knapton again conveniently changed what I said by dropping a critical word when he pointed out that standard Christian thought believes that “God reveals himself through nature.” What I said was that the theistic rationalists believed that “God PRIMARILY revealed himself through nature,” which is, of course, entirely different!!! That is not “standard Christian thought,” except, perhaps, in Mr. Knapton’s version of Christianity. Standard Christian thought is that God PRIMARILY reveals Himself in Scripture (revelation) and secondarily through nature.
And as I pointed out, that died with deism and natural religion in the first half of the 18th-century.
With part of point five and point ten have reference to Thomas Jefferson and his bible. Since Dr Fraser recommended looking at what Jefferson wrote. Let’s do just that. I believe Jefferson’s approach to his bible rests upon two beliefs. The first is his belief in God.
“So irresistible are these evidences [the world around him] of an intelligent and powerful Agent that, of the infinite numbers of men who have existed thro’ all time, they have believed, in the proportion of a million at least to Unit, in the hypothesis of an eternal pre-existence of a creator, rather than in that of a self-existent Universe.” (Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, from Monticello, April 11, 1823.)
Notice his belief rests upon the evidence of the world around him. This is not a rationalist position. For a rationalist proof of God turn to Descartes’ Meditation III. The second belief is based on what Jefferson thinks is a mistranslation of John 1: 1-3.
“Which truly translated means `in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made’. Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word.” (Jefferson’s letter to John Adams, from Monticello, April 11, 1823.)
Thus is it was his belief in God and the non-divine nature of Jesus that determined what Jefferson would include in his bible and what he would not include.
So what have we learned.
1 Deism and natural religion died out around the middle of 18th century. Natural religion was a spent force.
2. Dr Fraser’s two quotes from John Adams were cherry picked and don’t represent what Adams wrote.
3. “Theistic rationalism”, as a concept, doesn’t seem to exist in the second half of the 18th century. Also, it is not likely that “theistic rationalism” rose from the ashes of “deistic rationalism.”
4. Reason is not a magic wand that whatever it touches turns to the truth.
5. Dr Fraser is not a doctor of divinity.
6. The form of Jefferson’s bible was based on Jefferson’s belief in God based on his senses (an un-rationalistic position) and his belief that John 1:1-3 was mistranslated. It would seem that belief not reason grounded Jefferson’s efforts.
I guess that’s enough.
Rich
Now this knowledge and science does not favor one religion over another. In other words, it is not used to favor of one religion and not the others. Thus Adams is saying science (philosophy) is not used to buttress religious revelation. This is the exact opposite of what Dr. Fraser claimed. Those things concerning the world established by “intuition and induction” cannot be superceded by revelation of any kind.
Come on Rich. Don’t think that we aren’t going to notice you putting things into Adams’ mouth which he clearly didn’t say.
[...] Richard Knapton responds to Gregg Frazer’s response to him. Knapton’s response seems confused. I won’t tackle all of it, just one misunderstanding that he is trying to posit. [...]
I apologize, again, for responding tardily, but this is the first bloc of time I’ve had.
First of all, Mr. Knapton, my name is “Frazer.”
Second, Mr. Knapton is the first person I’ve encountered who denies real significance and influence to deism in 18th-century America. In fact, the standard view among scholars is that most of the Founders — including Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington — were deists. I’m sure that Jonathan Edwards, who wrote about the danger of deism and John Leland, who wrote a two-volume work on deism in 1764 and Elihu Palmer, who wrote the “bible” of deism in 1801 would all be shocked. As would Peter Gay, Kerry Walters, E.Graham Waring, and other scholars who have written sizable works on its influence.
Third, if, as he says, Mr. Knapton’s reference to Locke was not presented as proof to contradict my statement, then he offered no proof and my statement stands.
Fourth, I have not heard of “copy and past.” I have, however, heard of copy and paste — but my dissertation is in WordPerfect format, so copy and paste will not work in this context.
Fifth, I, too, really dislike “cherry picking” and that is not what I did in presenting the quotes from Adams. The significance I gave to the quotes is precisely what the context demands, although Mr. Knapton’s interpretation is quite creative. The point of the letter is to address the BASIS for the beliefs of the various groups. The portion left out in Mr. Knapton’s transcription is very illuminating (and important). After identifying the BASIS for the beliefs of the first set of groups (”real or pretended revelation”) , Adams addresses a belief of some Greeks [where Mr. Knapton simply puts "About the Greeks"]. There Adams says “On what prophecies they found their belief, I know not” [emphasis, again, on the BASIS for their beliefs]. He then identifies the BASIS for his belief and that of Jefferson IN COMPARISON TO that of the others and proclaims that he and Jefferson’s “faith may be supposed by more rational arguments than ANY [my emphasis] of the former.” The Christian belief which he mentioned [along with all of the others -- including the Greeks] is, of course, based on revelation. So, he is affirming that his belief places rationality above revelation (of various types — including the Bible).
I did not launch into this discussion the first time because I thought the quotes clear enough to stand on their own.
Concerning the second quote: since Jonathan Rowe has commented (keenly) on Mr. Knapton’s curious, but creative interpretation, I won’t add anything except to wonder why one who purports to really dislike cherry picking left out the final sentence of the paragraph in his transcription. There, after saying nice things about the Bible and Christ, he says: “Where is to be found theology more orthodox, or philosophy more profound, than in the introduction to the Shasta [sic]?” The Shastra is a Hindu text! Also, he does not say that his philosophy is “derived from the Bible” — he says that it “contains more” of his philosophy than all other books. And, in saying that he will further investigate the parts of the Bible which “seem not to be reconciled with his philosophy,” he reveals that he does not accept them on the basis of being revelation, but must “investigate” them to see if they can be made to fit within his philosophy — in other words, his reason trumps revelation.
Finally on this point, I have a PhD in political philosophy and my understanding of Locke was good enough to get me through PhD qualifying exams and several courses with nationally-recognized scholars. The fact that my “understanding” of Locke is different than that of Mr. Knapton perhaps says more about Mr. Knapton’s “understanding” than mine.
Sixth, if Mr. Knapton was not suggesting that my term is illegitimate because it didn’t exist at the time and was stating, instead, that the concept “simply has no foundation,” then we have another case of Mr. Knapton simply declaring my arguments invalid without offering any proof for his claims. I have 440 pages of evidence from the Founders and 18th-century American preachers — he has offered no evidence except thoughts of English empiricists, his creative interpretation of one of them [Locke], and his assurance that the American Founders believed everything that those British philosophers said. I’ll take what the Founders actually said they believed over what Mr. Knapton simply claims they believed and I’ll let the observant reader decide for him/her self.
Seventh, Jonathan addressed the “reason” question, so I won’t bother except to remind Mr. Knapton and interested readers that there is a distinction between what I, as an evangelical Christian, believe and what the Founders believed. I place revelation above reason and I do not “want to use the term as a magic wand by which whatever you touch truth is revealed.” The Founders used it as a basis for discovering and determining truth. If Mr. Knapton has a problem with that idea, he should take it up with the Founders — not me.
Eighth, in my “vain-glorious rush for acceptance,” I was using sarcasm. I apologize if it was not biting enough to be recognized.
Ninth, Mr. Knapton suggests that I need glasses because he says that he did not make a particular claim about what I had said. First, I have glasses already. Second, I referred to HIS comments about my statement in which he changed a key word in the point I made and replaced it with another word IN HIS COMMENTARY ON IT. A little “cut and paste” will show that he did what I said he did: my statement was: “Because virtually all religions promote morality, they believed that most religious traditions are valid and lead to the same God.” His commentary was: “However, they did not see all religious moral codes equal.” So, I accused him of defeating a straw man argument because he attacked the idea that the Founders saw “all religious moral codes EQUAL [my emphasis],” but I did not make that argument. I made the argument that they believed that MOST religious traditions are VALID and lead to the same God [my emphases]. So, he changed MOST to ALL and VALID to EQUAL — and, therefore, did not address my actual point, but rather one of his construction. I did not engage in “miss-quoting” — or misquoting.
Tenth, contrary to Mr. Knapton’s assertion, I do not assume for myself the right to decide who is a Christian and who is not. In fact, to avoid any such notion, I use the creeds, catechisms, and confessions ascribed to by the actual churches in America in the 18th century. As to Arianism, it was not declared heretical by the Catholic Church (in today’s sense of the term), but by the ONLY church at the time (before the Protestant Reformation) — a quite different church than that of the Middle Ages and one that has always been recognized as legitimate by Protestants. Furthermore, IN THE 18TH CENTURY (which is the period we’re talking about), BOTH PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS CONSIDERED ARIANISM HERETICAL and recognized the Trinity and deity of Christ as A (not THE) central belief of Christianity.
Mr. Knapton then accuses me of saying that the Trinity is “the central tenant of the Christian faith.” First, I said nothing about tenants (people who rent property), I talked about tenets (fundamental beliefs). Second, I did NOT say (again) what Mr. Knapton indicates that I said. I said that the Trinity is A central tenet — I did not say that it is THE central tenet. For those who want to look it up, here’s another “cut and paste”: [most people can skip the following bracketed part]
[Eighth, Mr. Knapton accuses me of “unintended sophistry” in pointing out that the theistic rationalists did not believe that Jesus was God and he suggests that there was “a strain of Christian thought” which taught that Jesus was subordinate to God. Methinks the sophistry is one the other foot, however. Mr. Knapton refers, apparently, to the Arian or Socinian heresies, which the church had declared to be heresies — and not Christian doctrine — centuries before. On page 10 of my dissertation, I have a chart which outlines the basic core beliefs of the Christian denominations in 18th century America as expressed in their own creeds, confessions, and catechisms. Every Christian denomination in 18th century America affirmed the deity of Christ and the Trinity as basic core Christian beliefs. Mr. Knapton’s suggestion might appeal to groups which came along later and who CLAIMED to be Christians, such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses; but it doesn’t stand up to 18th century scrutiny. There were, of course, those who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity (including the theistic rationalists), but they were considered “infidels” by 18th-century Christians.
If Mr. Knapton thinks that Christianity is “all about” Jesus being the savior of the world independent of His being God, then he and I have very different conceptions of what Christianity is “all about” — but, more importantly, he has a very different view than those we are discussing: 18th century American Christians.]
Note that I called the Trinity and the deity of Christ “basic core Christian beliefs” [plural], but did not in any way suggest or indicate that they were THE central beliefs — but, rather, 2 of the 10.
Furthermore, I would not approach a Buddhist priest for a definition of Christianity — apparently another difference between Mr. Knapton and myself. And Christians were called “Christians” because it means “little Christs,” which is what Christians were recognized as aspiring to be — followers of Christ (who, by the way, THEY understood to be God). Arianism didn’t come along until the 4th century, so there was no reason to highlight the Trinity above other fundamental doctrines. Mr. Knapton’s Christianity 101 course is quite different from my (an evangelical Christian) Christianity 101 and also quite different (and this is the point where this discussion is concerned) from the Christianity 101 course of 18th-century Americans.
Eleventh, Mr. Knapton then assured us again that deism and natural religion “died” in the “first half of the 18th-century” (no evidence, just his assurance) and that the idea that God PRIMARILY revealed Himself through nature died at the same time — with no evidence to support such an astonishing claim — just his affirmation.
Twelfth, regarding what Jefferson said about his approach to the Bible: I started to write a lengthy refutation of Mr. Knapton’s argument on this point, but I’ll just leave it to those who can read the earlier quotes from Jefferson making reason the sole judge with a fair and open mind and the following additional Jefferson quotes: “man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous,” and “gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck” and “No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards RATIONAL Christianity.” [my emphasis]
FINALLY, Mr. Knapton sums things up by suggesting that we’ve “learned” 6 things, but they’re not very revealing and suggest that we’ve wasted a lot of time — if, indeed, that’s all we’ve “learned.”
#1 [deism not significant] is a mere assertion on his part for which he gives no evidence and which flies in the face of the views of 18th-century contemporaries and modern scholarship.
#2 [cherry-picking charge] has been demonstrated in this entry to be false.
#3 [concept of theistic rationalism didn't exist] is another of his assertions without evidence and is circular logic — using as evidence what you’re trying to prove.
#4 [reason not magic wand] is meant as a shot at me, but misses the mark because I don’t believe it to begin with — and is irrelevant to the discussion because no one believes or believed it the way it’s written.
#5 [I'm not doctor of divinity] is quite true — but entirely irrelevant and, to my knowledge, no one has claimed the contrary. So, we’ve “learned” something that no one had an interest in learning and that many already knew.
#6 [Jefferson's motivation/method] is Mr. Knapton’s conclusion which he arrived at (apparently) by completely ignoring the extensive evidence presented from Jefferson’s own words concerning the role of reason in determining and evaluating potential revelation. His “un-rationalistic” remark also indicates that Mr. Knapton is under the false impression that there is only one kind/type of rationalism — a misconception which has been dealt with in previous threads of this discussion. One can’t help but wonder how Jefferson came to a “belief” that John 1 was mistranslated, since no sect was teaching such a “belief” and since, according to his own account, he made that determination himself based on his own personal analysis and would have been offended if someone suggested it were merely a “belief” and not a result of rational processes.
I submit that only Mr. Knapton has “learned” his six lessons.
[...] Gregg Frazer has replied to Richard Knapton’s latest reply. For context, it would help to first read Knapton’s reply, then my reply to Knapton, and then Frazer’s reply below: I apologize, again, for responding tardily, but this is the first bloc of time I’ve had. [...]