Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bad Kitty · 03-18-2003, 08:13 AM

I have a question about Locke and Hume and Christianity and the principles on which this nation was founded (yes, that same old argument). This is my first post, so if this subject has been beat to death, please forgive me.

I've been debating "founding principles" issue with a Christian acquaintance and he posited the following:

Quote:

The bedrock principles on which this country was founded- consent of the governed, the inalienable rights of man, freedom of expression including religious expression, came from the social contract theory of Locke and Hume. You speak as if these giants of the Enlightenment had rejected Christianity, when in fact both argued forcefully that Christian doctrine was the natural order (see The Necessary Existence of God: in Hume�s Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion) and in fact could be derived from first principles (see the aforementioned The Reasonableness of Christianity by Locke). Even Rousseau, while rejecting Christian influence in matters of state and special revelation in general, was convinced of God's existence,

"This �being� which wills and is powerful, this being active in itself, this being, whatever it may be, which moves the universe and orders all things, I call God."

and derived from what he calls "Natural Theology", man's fallen nature and his resultant separation from God, the premise that man was made in God's image, the existence of an innate need for worship, and man's dominion over an earth created by God specifically for man's enjoyment. So even the philosophy of Rousseau, that interesting madman, the father of modern humanism, in the end came to many of the same conclusions as St. Augustine!

As an aside, in Rousseau Christians can see the curse of Rationalism: able through pure reason to discern the nature of God and man's eternal separation from Him, but without hope of ever bridging this gapping divide through the power of reason alone, he is left in a netherworld of despair.

But as soon as I want to contemplate Him in Himself, as soon as I want to find out where He is, what He is, what His substance is, He escapes me, and my clouded mind no longer perceives anything.
...Death is merely the remedy of the evils that we do. Nature did not want you to suffer forever.

Revisionist straw men notwithstanding, the philosophic foundation from which American democracy found root was theistic in the general and Christian in the particular.

What do you all think about this?

Regards,

Michelle

ruby-soho · 03-18-2003, 08:56 AM

I'd ask your Christian friend to find in the Bible where there are references to democratic principles. Where are the verses which refer to a constitutional republic (which what the US is, not a pure democracy)? Freedom of and from religion? Rights of property? Also, the governing document of our country, the Constitution, makes no reference to any specific religion and was written that way by our Founders intentionally. Our country was founded as a secular, constitutional republic. NOT a theocracy.

If there are any 'theistic' influences in the 'philosophic foundation' of our country, they are strictly Deistic at best. It would appear the only 'revisionist straw men' arguments are coming from your friend.

My two cents,

D

Toto · 03-18-2003, 10:12 AM

Your friend is confusing two questions: "Were the founders of this nation Christian?" is not the same as "Did the founders intend to establish a Christian nation?"

The United States arose in an intellectual climate which was Christian. Intellectuals in Europe who were not Christian risked being fired from their jobs or burned at the stake.

And of course everyone in those days was "theistic" in some sense. Modern atheism could only arise after the scientific theories were developed to show how the world arose without a supernatural creator.

So it is understandable Locke and Hume chose not to challenge Christianity even while they propounded ideas that are not found in the Bible and are completely incompatible with Biblical ideas that governments are installed by God and not by the consent of the governmed.

And it was the genius of the founders of this country to establish a secular nation with separation of church and state, so that some stale 18th century theology is not written into our foundational documents, whatever the founders' own views were.

I suspect that what your friend says about Hume is incorrect but I don't have the time to look into it now. You might want to cross post this question in the Philosophy forum.

Buffman · 03-18-2003, 10:42 AM

TheBigZoo (Michelle)

A hearty welcome and a dandy first post. Perhaps the thoughts contained at this URL will be of some assistance.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/humereli.htm

lpetrich · 03-18-2003, 11:31 AM

John Locke considered himself an Xian; he considered religious revelation a legitimate source of knowledge, along with reason and sense-experience.

However, he wrote the classic Essays on Toleration, arguing that governments ought not to take sides on the question of which religious sect is right.

And he distrusted "enthusiasm", by which he ment things like awakening in the middle of the night and babbling uncontrollably -- and concluding that that babbling was messages from the Holy Spirit.

He was also an inventor of the "social contract" theory of government, which is well-stated in the US Constitution's Preamble ("we, the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."). He also criticized a then-common political theory: the Divine Right of Kings.

Bill Snedden · 03-18-2003, 01:42 PM

Not!

Any reference by Hume to the "Necessary Existence of God" in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion would probably have come from Cleanthes or Demea and, as we all know, Hume's position was most aptly set forth by Philo. In addition, it is well known that Hume was a skeptic and that while Philo may have vigorously asserted God's existence, Hume questioned it.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

SLD · 03-18-2003, 09:31 PM

I would say that it is far too simplistic to simply posit that Locke and Hume were the founders inspiration WRT church state separation. Locke did not posit complete separation of church and state, but toleration of sects, with the notable exception of Atheism.

Madison and Jefferson took a great deal from Lock and Hume, but took their ideas a step further. They knew that toleration was not enough. That is toleration alone would not lead to full freedom of conscience. The genius of the founding fathers is that they didn't blindly follow philosophers from a century or millenium before them but took from their very classical education and built something very original.

If you want the real foundation of the American Republic, you need look no further than the classical education that our founders received at their universities. That education heavily favored an idealistic view of the Greco-Roman world, with the height of civilization being the glory days of Rome - both as a Republic and later as an Empire. They read Cicero extensively as well as Plato and Aristotle. They understood the latter two's exceptions to democracy. Thus the great seal of the United States has the motto "Annuit Coeptis" which comes from Virgil's Aeneid, when Aeneus when embarking from Carthage to found Rome asks for Jupiter to favor his daring undertakings. The founders were trying to link the founding of the United States with the founding of Rome. They viewed this country not as a Christian nation, but as the new Rome in the new world.

Also, although I'm not an expert on Hume, I believe he was actually a critic of Locke's social contract theories. I leave it to those more knowledgeable than me about Hume to correct that. However, to call him a supporter of Christianity is utterly ludicrous. He was at best a Deist. On his death bed in 1776, crowds gathered outside his house to find out if he would convert and were shocked when Hume's good friend, Adam Smith, reported that he had not. His criticism of religious belief has been an inspiration for generations of freethinkers to follow.

Invite your friend to these boards and we will see how well read he really is, or whether, as I suspect, he's read a few fundy websites.

SLDER

Evangelion · 03-19-2003, 09:07 AM

Locke was definitely a Christian. Specifically, a Unitarian.

The West is indebted to him for his social and political philosophy.

Bad Kitty · 03-19-2003, 09:23 AM

Thanks all for the feedback and direction, I've got some reading to do now... I'm just too curious to find out more!

Michelle

themistocles · 03-25-2003, 02:45 PM

The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Locke in a nutshell, really. Chapter II, p. 6 of "2nd Treatise".

03-18-2003, 08:56 AM	#2
ruby-soho Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Kansas City USA Posts: 68	Ummm.. I'd ask your Christian friend to find in the Bible where there are references to democratic principles. Where are the verses which refer to a constitutional republic (which what the US is, not a pure democracy)? Freedom of and from religion? Rights of property? Also, the governing document of our country, the Constitution, makes no reference to any specific religion and was written that way by our Founders intentionally. Our country was founded as a secular, constitutional republic. NOT a theocracy. If there are any 'theistic' influences in the 'philosophic foundation' of our country, they are strictly Deistic at best. It would appear the only 'revisionist straw men' arguments are coming from your friend. My two cents, D

03-18-2003, 01:42 PM	#6
Bill Snedden Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Greensboro, NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,597	Hume a Christian? Not! Any reference by Hume to the "Necessary Existence of God" in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion would probably have come from Cleanthes or Demea and, as we all know, Hume's position was most aptly set forth by Philo. In addition, it is well known that Hume was a skeptic and that while Philo may have vigorously asserted God's existence, Hume questioned it. Regards, Bill Snedden

03-19-2003, 09:23 AM	#9
Bad Kitty Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: The South. Posts: 2,122	thanks... Thanks all for the feedback and direction, I've got some reading to do now... I'm just too curious to find out more! Michelle

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-18-2003, 10:12 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Your friend is confusing two questions: "Were the founders of this nation Christian?" is not the same as "Did the founders intend to establish a Christian nation?" The United States arose in an intellectual climate which was Christian. Intellectuals in Europe who were not Christian risked being fired from their jobs or burned at the stake. And of course everyone in those days was "theistic" in some sense. Modern atheism could only arise after the scientific theories were developed to show how the world arose without a supernatural creator. So it is understandable Locke and Hume chose not to challenge Christianity even while they propounded ideas that are not found in the Bible and are completely incompatible with Biblical ideas that governments are installed by God and not by the consent of the governmed. And it was the genius of the founders of this country to establish a secular nation with separation of church and state, so that some stale 18th century theology is not written into our foundational documents, whatever the founders' own views were. I suspect that what your friend says about Hume is incorrect but I don't have the time to look into it now. You might want to cross post this question in the Philosophy forum.

03-18-2003, 10:42 AM	#4
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	TheBigZoo (Michelle) A hearty welcome and a dandy first post. Perhaps the thoughts contained at this URL will be of some assistance. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/humereli.htm

03-18-2003, 11:31 AM	#5
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	John Locke considered himself an Xian; he considered religious revelation a legitimate source of knowledge, along with reason and sense-experience. However, he wrote the classic Essays on Toleration, arguing that governments ought not to take sides on the question of which religious sect is right. And he distrusted "enthusiasm", by which he ment things like awakening in the middle of the night and babbling uncontrollably -- and concluding that that babbling was messages from the Holy Spirit. He was also an inventor of the "social contract" theory of government, which is well-stated in the US Constitution's Preamble ("we, the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."). He also criticized a then-common political theory: the Divine Right of Kings.

03-18-2003, 09:31 PM	#7
SLD Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Birmingham, Alabama Posts: 4,109	I would say that it is far too simplistic to simply posit that Locke and Hume were the founders inspiration WRT church state separation. Locke did not posit complete separation of church and state, but toleration of sects, with the notable exception of Atheism. Madison and Jefferson took a great deal from Lock and Hume, but took their ideas a step further. They knew that toleration was not enough. That is toleration alone would not lead to full freedom of conscience. The genius of the founding fathers is that they didn't blindly follow philosophers from a century or millenium before them but took from their very classical education and built something very original. If you want the real foundation of the American Republic, you need look no further than the classical education that our founders received at their universities. That education heavily favored an idealistic view of the Greco-Roman world, with the height of civilization being the glory days of Rome - both as a Republic and later as an Empire. They read Cicero extensively as well as Plato and Aristotle. They understood the latter two's exceptions to democracy. Thus the great seal of the United States has the motto "Annuit Coeptis" which comes from Virgil's Aeneid, when Aeneus when embarking from Carthage to found Rome asks for Jupiter to favor his daring undertakings. The founders were trying to link the founding of the United States with the founding of Rome. They viewed this country not as a Christian nation, but as the new Rome in the new world. Also, although I'm not an expert on Hume, I believe he was actually a critic of Locke's social contract theories. I leave it to those more knowledgeable than me about Hume to correct that. However, to call him a supporter of Christianity is utterly ludicrous. He was at best a Deist. On his death bed in 1776, crowds gathered outside his house to find out if he would convert and were shocked when Hume's good friend, Adam Smith, reported that he had not. His criticism of religious belief has been an inspiration for generations of freethinkers to follow. Invite your friend to these boards and we will see how well read he really is, or whether, as I suspect, he's read a few fundy websites. SLDER

03-19-2003, 09:07 AM	#8
Evangelion Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Walsall, UK Posts: 1,490	Locke was definitely a Christian. Specifically, a Unitarian. The West is indebted to him for his social and political philosophy.

03-25-2003, 02:45 PM	#10
themistocles Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: las vegas, nevada Posts: 670	The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another's pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Every one as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another. Locke in a nutshell, really. Chapter II, p. 6 of "2nd Treatise".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.