Reason, we're often told, is something opposed to religion, and therefore anything which falls beneath the banner of the latter has no place in public discourse and should remain an object of purely private interest. Secularists tell us this, atheists tell us this, and sometimes even people of faith tell us this -- there's to be no establishment of religion after all, which seems a reasonable compromise. This formula, however, contains a now subtle but historically glaring fallacy, which is simply the assumption that religion is solely a matter of faith to the exclusion of reason.
When Thomas Jefferson spoke - and in a public capacity - about things like liberty as the "gift of God", was he, to his mind, speaking in the language of faith? Absolutely not. He was, instead, making a philosophical point. To Thomas Jefferson, to Thomas Paine, to Benjamin Franklin, etc., philosophy was a mode of rational inquiry, and reason applied to the data of the senses concluded in a "Law of Nature and of Nature's God."
Consult, for example, the diatribe against faith called the Age of Reason and you'll find its author, Thomas Paine, making a distinction that in fact Christendom used to make - and Catholics still do. Giving a commentary in the First Part of his book on a passage from the book of Job, Paine makes the point that reason can discover God's existence, but is incapable of revealing the whole of His attributes. In this all but forgotten distinction, the first "object" (God's existence) falls under the heading of natural theology, a subject of rational inquiry - reason; the second (God's attributes) under revealed theology, as articles believed by faith - the Incarnation and the Trinity are instances of the second. This distinction, however, seems to have vanished from our discourse; thus we now have gross misunderstanding, propagandist redefinitions, and, frankly, the wrongful tipping of the scales in disfavor of religion - wrongful at least to the extent a religion is natural.
This faded distinction applies also to ethics and to a particular view of man's nature. Why, for instance, won't schools teach the cardinal (natural) virtues? The supernatural virtues of faith, hope and love certainly fall to a given student's church to inculcate, but temperance, fortitude, justice and prudence are well within the purview of natural reason, thus of a teachable universal ethic. No less important, the Western conception of man's nature, the view that man is a "rational animal" - the only view upon which to predicate the conviction that "all men are created equal" - seems a curiously antiquated notion. Though this view may supplement the Christian view that man, through adoption, can become divinized, it also sets him apart at a philosophical level from mere animal impulses, granting him some degree of freedom and dignity from mere material causation; that fact is not an article of faith, it's potential compatibility with a given religion should not make a difference.
However, to some people compatibilities, which are favorable to religion, do make a difference. From ethics to a particular view of man's nature to the existence of God, secularists, atheists, and even some Christians have pulled out their broad brush; they've broad brushed all talk of God and morality with the colors of faith. Thus, in effect, they've camouflaged the fact that some religions claim to be grounded in reason, upon certain rational pillars; and camouflaged, moreover, the fact that these same rational pillars were established as the very bulwark of a free Republic, the blessings of which, at least to this day, we as a nation have inherited.
Pull out your copy of the Declaration of Independence -- our Founders used the golden pillars of natural theology, natural ethics, and a rational view of man's nature to erect a philosophy of freedom. We have great precedent, therefore, for reclaiming these preambles to freedom in the public domain, even if they happen to be preambles to faith in the private.
Cause and effect
1 week ago
4 comments:
It’s my opinion (based on the barna.org’s research) that the “tipping of the scales in disfavor of religion” has very little to do with the First Amendment and much more to do with an ever widening disconnect between some religious ideas and reality. You cannot teach that the earth and universe are 6000 years while every field of science states otherwise. You cannot claim homosexuality is an “abomination” when most every young Christian knows, and probably accepts, a gay person in their life. Something like 50% of Catholics use birth control, not because they “love sin”, but because it truly improves the quality of their life. Granted, these are minority views given that there are two billion Christians, but regardless, as long as there are Fred Phelps and Ken Hams, Msgr. Echevarrias and (even Mohammed Attas) in the world, all religions will continue to be seen as suspect.
But that has nothing to do with the main point of your essay. Which, for the most part, I agree with. A Christian Lawmaking should never be prohibited from voting or writing legislation in a way that’s been informed by their faith, but the Establishment Clause is the Establishment Clause, it was put there for a reason, and no matter how reasonable a particular religion claims to be, the Federal Government cannot endorse a religion. Which means no nativity scenes, no crosses, no ten commandments, no mosques. Which is fine, because it only means the Government cannot do it, and I think you may be misusing the term “public” to create a strawman. Private can very well be public, just as long as it’s not governmental.
Jefferson pointed out that he was an Epicurean in a letter to an aquaintance.
And, he also pointed out that he wasn't talking about eating good food and drinking good wine, as theistic philosophers have painted Epicureanism for 2300 years or so.
Now I can understand 'regular Joes' being persuaded that Epicurus had a frivolous philosophy based on 'good times', I can understand 'regular Joes' being persuaded that Thomas Jefferson was a believer to make a point about Separation of Church and State.
What I can't understand here is your selecting quotes from Thomas Jefferson in an attempt to persuade, as if he WERE a believer.
If you see what I mean. Seems your having another of your little philosophical jokes with/on us.
Floyd:
A believer in what? I'm sorry but did you read my post? I was actually quite clear as opposed to the comment "in an attempt to persuade, as if he WERE a believer." No one can fairly read my post and come away thinking I painted Jefferson as a Christian believer; or if you mean by your vague and general comment "believer in God," then you're clearly wrong and maintain that charge in the face of clear evidence to the contrary (his calling himself an "Epicurean" had to do with moral philosophy, not with rejecting God).
And here IS the point of my post: Jefferson's belief in God was not of the species of faith, but of reason and the common notions and sentiments of man. Reason was much broader than just science; in so far as it included metaphysics and ethics it included philosophy, the conclusions of which not only supported but were (and are) necessary to the aim of government and the Constitution. The Federal government cannot establish a particular national religion, but it can support religion in general - in so far as religion is natural, i.e., natural theology (see post).
Okay, then, let's try a different tack.
"Reason, we're often told, is something opposed to religion.."
I think that there's a simple, straightforward reason for this 'oft-told' truism.
Religion, most people, if pressed, will tell you, depends on faith. Faith is believing without objective evidence.
The Bible itself is not objective evidence, even tho' we could throw Bibles at each other, because it is just a collection of stories, told, retold, written down and translated.
We cannot, truthfully, start from the perspective that we cannot 'know' anything at all and move forward from that.
Bringing in 'authorities' is simply confusing the issue, and that, my friend, seems to be all that you've got.
Post a Comment