Judge Jones on the Founding Fathers

The more I see from this guy, the more I like him. Over the weekend, he gave the commencement address at his alma mater, Dickinson College. I like much of what he had to say:

"The founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry," said Jones, who was thrust into the national spotlight by last year's court fight over the teaching of evolution in the Dover school district.

The founding fathers - from school namesake John Dickinson to Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson - were products of the Enlightenment, Jones said.

"They possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason," he said.

"This core set of beliefs led the founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state."

This fits very well with the notion that Jon Rowe and I have been advocating for a couple years now, that the leading lights among the founders (the first four presidents, plus Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and a few others) were primarily "theistic rationalists". All believed firmly in God, of course, but rejected most claims of revelation, believing that we could ascertain the truth about God and the universe through the use of our reason alone.

Tags

More like this

In our local paper there frequently appears a letter-to-editor saying something like "wall of separation not in constitution". I write a rebuttal quoting Jefferson and Madison and explaining about metaphor. I would like to have quotes from "the first four presidents, plus Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and a few others)" so as to vary and/or enlarge my responses. I know that I probably could find some with some googling, but, if you have some specific references, could you list a few. Thanks.

Kari: The first chapter of Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers has a wealth of direct quotes from Jefferson, Madison, Paine, and others, which may suit your needs very well.

By Sanguinity (not verified) on 22 May 2006 #permalink

The best source for studying the religious views of the founders is Jonathan Rowe. He has done all the research and he organizes his material in such a way that his sources are easily confirmed.

By John Cercone (not verified) on 22 May 2006 #permalink

Thanks.

One interesting thing about Dickinson, though, he may not have been a theistic rationalist. He may have leaned towards orthodox Christianity, or at least Quakerism (if founding era Quakerism could be deemed "orthodox Christian.")

The Hutson book says Dickinson had close ties to the Quakers but never joined because he approved of defensive warfare.

But in any event, Dickinson appears to have had the same views on religion and goverment (and anti-clericalism) as Jefferson and Madison.

See my post where I review Philip Hamburger's Separation of Church and State. Here is what James Hutson's book of quotations has Dickinson saying:

"Religion and Government are certainly very different Things, instituted for different Ends; the design of one being to promote our temporal Happiness; the design of the other to procure the Favour of God, and thereby the Salvation of our Souls. While these are kept distinct and apart, the Peace and welfare of Society is preserved, and the Ends of both are answered. By mixing them together, feuds, animosities and persecutions have been raised, which have deluged the World in Blood, and disgraced human Nature."

John Dickinson, writing over the signature, "A.B" Pennsylvania Journal, May 12, 1768.

What's interesting is that even Philip Hamburger, who meticulously uncovers founding era usages of the phrase or those similar to "Separation of Church and State" (and then explains them away with context), missed this one.

I thought Thomas Paine was a rabid Diest? Like Lincoln.

By beervolcano (not verified) on 24 May 2006 #permalink

Thomas Paine was a deist, but deism is within the scope of what Jon and I call theistic rationalism.

While I do not know Ed Brayton, Jon Rowe got the phrase "theistic rationalism" from me. I'm sure he will confirm that fact. He read it in an article I wrote on the Claremont Institute website. I coined the phrase in my doctoral dissertation, which Jon told me he was going to order. I have also presented my case at a number of academic conferences from Washington, D.C. to Michigan to California.

Obviously, I have a proprietary interest in the use of the term.

Consequently, I must distinguish between deism and theistic rationalism. The whole point of the phrase "theistic rationalism" was to distinguish the distinctive "hybrid" belief system of many of the American founders from both deism and Christianity. Deism is NOT within the scope of theistic rationalism.

Theistic rationalism is a sort of mean between deism and Christianity -- it includes elements of both, but is a distinct belief system. Thomas Paine was NOT a theistic rationalist, but a deist.

Briefly, in contrast to deism, theistic rationalists believed in a present, active God who intervenes in the affairs of men. Consequently, unlike deists, they believed in the efficacy of prayer. They believed in some written revelation, while deists rejected any/all written revelation. They held a higher view of Jesus (great moral teacher) than did deists, who viewed him as an "imposter" and (in the "bible" of American deism) as a criminal. These are a few of the differences between deists and theistic rationalists.

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, James Wilson, and Gouverneur Morris were theistic rationalists -- as were many preachers during the Revolutionary period.

Since I've written 440 pages on the subject and have "done all the research," I care very much how it is presented -- hence my entrance into this discussion.

By Gregg Frazer (not verified) on 31 May 2006 #permalink

Gregg, welcome to you. You did indeed coin the phrase "theistic rationalists", and I've credited you with it in the past. I like the term very much, and admire your work on the subject. Jon and I have collaborated on a long term project to correct misconceptions about the founding fathers and religion for a couple years now and have used your work to that end. That said, I'm not sure there's quite as clear a line between deist and theistic rationalist as you suggest here. My understanding is that most who were known as deists in the 18th century did believe in an intervening, provident god, just not the Biblical God or any God who had given direct revelation. Paine, if I recall correctly, did believe in a provident god who intervened in his creation. Am I mistaken?

Thanx for the welcome, Ed.

I have several responses to your latest post.

First, with all due respect, I believe you are mistaken concerning Paine's belief in a provident, intervening god. I re-read Age of Reason and several other of his "theological" works and did word searches of them -- he never speaks of providence other than to ridicule the "mythology" of Christianity and never speaks of intervention by God.

Second, if you affirm that Paine & the deists did not believe in any kind of direct revelation, then you have separated them from theistic rationalists right there.

Third, in a relatively unknown (unfortunately) essay called "On the Providence of God in the Government of the World," Ben Franklin identifies belief in an absent, removed, non-intervening god with deism. By the way, he categorically rejects such an idea as "irrational." This categorization comports with part of the definition of deism given by the "father of deism" (Lord Herbert of Cherbury): "belief in a God who, having created the universe ... has withdrawn his active presence from it, and remains completely aloof while it functions in strict accordance with the natural laws with which he originally endowed it. The withdrawal of God distinguishes deism from theism, which maintains the 'immanence' or continued activity of God in the universe."

Fourth, Paine sometimes talks of God's care for man -- but that care is entirely "frontloaded" -- it is provided to man in creation/nature alone.

Fifth, some scholars suggest that a branch of deists believed in a provident, intervening god; but when they do so, they almost invariably quote Franklin, Jefferson, or Washington and then identify them as "exceptions" regarding certain key beliefs. In fact, however, my research demonstrates that the reason they appear to be anomalous is that they were not deists. They were theistic rationalists.

By Gregg Frazer (not verified) on 01 Jun 2006 #permalink

Gregg Frazer wrote:

First, with all due respect, I believe you are mistaken concerning Paine's belief in a provident, intervening god. I re-read Age of Reason and several other of his "theological" works and did word searches of them -- he never speaks of providence other than to ridicule the "mythology" of Christianity and never speaks of intervention by God...

Fourth, Paine sometimes talks of God's care for man -- but that care is entirely "frontloaded" -- it is provided to man in creation/nature alone.

I think that's why I perceived that Paine believed in at least a benevolent God who not only wound the world up and let it go, but created the world specifically for us. As a deist myself who believes in such a "watchmaker" conception, that seems distinguishable. But for some reason, I've long had the notion that 18th century deists were generally more open to the idea of a benevolent but non-revelation-giving deity. But that may be because I've sort of casually lumped Jefferson, Franklin and Paine together with Voltaire and others for most of my life, where your work distinguishes between the distinct views among them.

Third, in a relatively unknown (unfortunately) essay called "On the Providence of God in the Government of the World," Ben Franklin identifies belief in an absent, removed, non-intervening god with deism. By the way, he categorically rejects such an idea as "irrational." This categorization comports with part of the definition of deism given by the "father of deism" (Lord Herbert of Cherbury): "belief in a God who, having created the universe ... has withdrawn his active presence from it, and remains completely aloof while it functions in strict accordance with the natural laws with which he originally endowed it. The withdrawal of God distinguishes deism from theism, which maintains the 'immanence' or continued activity of God in the universe."

But didn't Franklin self-identify as a deist? I think that's part of the reason why I've conceived of 18th century deists as being more open to a benevolent, provident God than modern deists, because Franklin called himself a deist yet clearly believed in something considerably less aloof (though equally clearly not the God of Christianity). I know that Franklin's views changed over time, and I recall that in his autobiography he noted that he had been a Calvinist as a young man but had converted to deism. But since I haven't read that book in a couple of decades, it's possible that I am misremembering, or simply unaware of something he later wrote.

Second, if you affirm that Paine & the deists did not believe in any kind of direct revelation, then you have separated them from theistic rationalists right there.

Did Jefferson believe in any direct revelation? He at least seemed to reject the notion that the Bible was a direct revelation from God, rejecting the Old Testament conception of God, all of Paul's work and most of the gospels. Was there some other form of direct revelation that Jefferson believed in that I'm not aware of? Or is there some more subtle distinction that I'm missing?

I appreciate you taking the time to engage my questions. I suspect that I have been using the term "theistic rationalism" a bit more broadly than you have, and I'd like to see where the differences are, if for no other reason than to clear up any misconceptions I may have about your work.

Nice to see Professor Frazer post here.

Ed:

Wouldn't the well known fact that Jefferson cut up his Bible demonstrate that he believed in *some* Revelation -- the part that was left after he "edited" out everything that he deemed unreasonable.

Jon Rowe wrote:

Wouldn't the well known fact that Jefferson cut up his Bible demonstrate that he believed in *some* Revelation -- the part that was left after he "edited" out everything that he deemed unreasonable.

No, because what was left were the words of Jesus, who he explicitly said was just a man, not divine. For Jefferson, this was no more an example of divine revelation than the writings of Plato or Cicero.

First, "benevolent" (frontloaded) is very different from provident or intervening.

Second, regarding Franklin identifying with deism -- he did that at age 15, but he lived 70 more years and his thinking changed significantly. Speaking about his fling with deism in his Autobiography, he declared that the arguments of deism "appeared now not so clever a performance as I once thought it." In fact, he gives "the kind hand of Providence" credit for "preserv(ing)" him "through this dangerous time of youth." As I pointed out, he specifically rejected the central deist notion of an absent god and called it the deist position in the "On Providence" essay.

Third, Jefferson showed much more interest and belief in written revelation than deism would allow. To wit:

1. In a letter to Miles King (Sep. 26, 1814), who claimed to have received revelation from God, Jefferson did not deny the possibility, but advised King as to how to determine whether it were legitimate.

2. In a Dec. 5, 1801 letter to Isaac Story, Jefferson said that (written) "revelation has, for reasons unknown to us, chosen to leave us in the dark" regarding transmigration of souls. Later in the same letter, he said: "If revealed language has not been able to guard itself against misinterpretation, I could not expect it." Here he clearly affirms that there IS written revelation and "revealed language."

3. In a Jan. 24, 1814 letter to Adams, Jefferson said of the books of the Old Testament that only "parts of them are genuine" -- but that means that parts of them are, in his opinion, GENUINE.

4. As for the Gospels, Jon is quite correct to mention Jefferson's editing of them. It is not as simple as noting that Jefferson thought Jesus just a man, because Jefferson said they include the "sublime ideas of the Supreme Being" and that "(t)hese could not be inventions of the grovelling authors who relate them. They are far beyond the powers of their feeble minds." Remember that Jesus didn't leave any written work -- the Gospels were written by others (who were largely uneducated) and so Jefferson sees them as an affirmation of revelation [backhanded praise, to be sure].

5. Jefferson also routinely used biblical metaphors and biblical phrases which demonstrate a familiarity and respect for Scripture not normal for deists. He even quoted entire verses or passages of Scripture to make a point.

6. His argument against the deity of Jesus included a study of John 1:1-3 in the original Greek. A deist would have dismissed John's account as irrelevant.

7. Taking up the argument of self-identification, Jefferson NEVER IDENTIFIED HIMSELF AS A DEIST, but he DID identify himself as a Christian! In fact, he said of his "work" on the Gospels that "it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian." He was wrong, as he had invented his own system and merely called it Christianity, but it is instructive to note that he at least claimed that identity and never claimed the one routinely associated with him.

8. Finally, Jefferson bought the most expensive edition of the Bible published in America (the "Hot-Press Bible" published in Philadelphia).

A fundamental tenet of deism was the denial of ANY written revelation from God and that "nature, viewed by reason, is the only valid source of God's revelation to man" (Paine). Jefferson clearly was not part of this camp.

By Gregg Frazer (not verified) on 02 Jun 2006 #permalink

Well, I certainly agree with you that Jefferson was not a deist and that "theistic rationalist" is a much better term for what he was. Of the reasons you list for Jefferson accepting revelation, the only one I find compelling at all is the second one, though I'm still not aware of any information on what particular claimed revelation he did accept as being genuinely divine in origin. But that is really an irrrelevant side argument. I'm also not sure, as I said, that the dividing line between deists, unitarians and theistic rationalists is quite as clear as perhaps you suggest; it seems to be a bit fuzzy to me. But I still think it's important that some distinction be made for a third way because you are absolutely correct to say that many of the leading lights of the founders didn't fit squarely within either camp, but somewhere in between. Anyway, thanks for stopping by here. I will certainly continue to cite your work in this context because I think you provide a crucial balance against the inaccuracies of both sides in disputes about the religious views of the founding fathers.