quote:The deists were constructive theologians; they did not believe they were struggling to explain the world but approached it with confidence in reason. Jefferson (and other deists like Franklin) found deism useful intellectually and politically in its own right, not merely as a crutch.
Which is actually explicitly why I say that Jefferson was not a deist. With the exception of his writing in the Declaration, which may have been partially Paine's in the first place, we don't have much evidence of any persistent belief on Jefferson's part of the value of the supernatural. I have not claimed that Washington or Franklin were atheists, you'll notice; in fact, I've said that Washington pretty clearly wasn't. Jefferson, however, does not appear to share their belief in a sentient Creator.
----------
Kat, I think the reason it's so hard to think of pre-Darwinian atheists is that Occam was right.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, I think there are a dozen other more plausible reasons.
quote:Kat: Part of my point is, what DO you consider acceptable evidence?
It seems like you're asking me why I believe what I believe, which is an incredibly personal subject for me. I don't feel comfortable sharing it in this venue.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the risk of going completely off topic, I wonder how often "correlation does not equal causation" is actually being used to combat Occam's razor.
Though I guess I could try and tie it back to the matter of miracles and whether they cause faith or not. It is an important tenet of Mormonism that faith precedes miracle, and that people who are "sign-seekers" and look for miracles are spiritually corrupt. It is important because we do believe God continues to perform miracles.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Nah, I think there are a dozen other more plausible reasons.
quote:Kat: Part of my point is, what DO you consider acceptable evidence?
It seems like you're asking me why I believe what I believe, which is an incredibly personal subject for me. I don't feel comfortable sharing it in this venue.
In that case, what kind of evidence is your evidence?
If you can't say that without revealing your personal stuff, I understand.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
Yes, well in the supposedly crappy example miracle I gave, you couldn't explain it away using natural understanding. You just said, "There must be a non-miraculous explanation for this-I just don't know it yet."
Your perspective renders impossible any miracles to begin with. It's hardly a point in your favor therefore that you wouldn't believe in a miracle.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nah, I think there are a dozen other more plausible reasons.
You can? You can think of a reason for the existence of the universe that does not require modern physics to explain that is simpler than and as accurate as "someone did it?"
The only other one I can think of that's of equivalent simplicity is "it has always been," which is taken by another religion.
Nowadays, the gulf is small enough that we can say "we aren't completely sure how this happened, but that's okay." Three hundred years ago, that gulf was big -- and it would have taken a truly exceptional mind not to fill it with a god of some kind.
quote:It is an important tenet of Mormonism that faith precedes miracle, and that people who are "sign-seekers" and look for miracles are spiritually corrupt.
This is, in my opinion, at least partly because it is possible to talk yourself into belief where disbelief does not exist.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, well in the supposedly crappy example miracle I gave, you couldn't explain it away using natural understanding.
It was close enough to things that are possible, and things that can be simulated, that it wasn't very miraculous.
Miracles that would be much more interesting: * Take me on a flight through space without any mechanical protection from the vacuum and other hazards of space. Let me note features of planets and moons that I am not familiar with but which I could verify the existence of by referring to astronomical texts later.
* Have me become instantaneously fluent in a language to which I've had no exposure.
* Regrow an amputated limb
* Correct, with no medical assistance, a severe birth defect such as a very bad case of spina bifida.
* Separate, with no medical assistance, conjoined twins.
The last few are particularly interesting because they would fit with God's normal pattern of healing people, but would do it in a much less ambiguous way than he usually gets credit for.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was close enough to things that are possible, and things that can be simulated, that it wasn't very miraculous.
Well, it's not really. People's wounds don't just press themselves together and heal themselves up-except on television. Implicit in my example was that you are watching it with your own eyes. That is never seen, and cannot be simulated by special effects.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, well, that gets into the old question of whether God as viewed by Mormons is actually supernatural. There was a prominent Mormon scholar, Sterling McMurrin, who argued that God is not supernatural, and that all his miracles would eventually be explicable. I don't hold McMurrin in very high regard, but I've run into views that imply something similar in many a faithful Mormon. If so, I'm afraid I'm a bit of a heretic, since I do find God to be supernatural.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was close enough to things that are possible, and things that can be simulated, that it wasn't very miraculous.
Well, it's not really. People's wounds don't just press themselves together and heal themselves up-except on television. Implicit in my example was that you are watching it with your own eyes. That is never seen, and cannot be simulated by special effects.
I did say "close enough" and many "miraculous" phenomena which can be observed in a relatively small area can be simulated by illusionists. So your miracle might seem miraculous depending on the scope and presentation, but a more convincing miracle would be one that could not conceivably faked.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: People's wounds don't just press themselves together and heal themselves up-except on television. Implicit in my example was that you are watching it with your own eyes.
What do you watch TV with, your feet? 1080p must be so lost on you Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:a more convincing miracle would be one that could not conceivably faked.
A lot of illusionist tricks are inconceivable to a large portion of the audience. Until you know the trick.
Just because we can't imagine any possible way that it was faked does not mean we'll believe that it wasn't. If we want to believe that it had to have been faked, that's what we'll believe.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of illusionist tricks are inconceivable to a large portion of the audience. Until you know the trick.
That's why I propose miracles that require processes that cannot be simulated. Sure, regrowing a limb may be medically possible some day, but if it were to happen instantaneously today I'd be a lot more open to the idea of supernatural cause.
quote:If we want to believe that it had to have been faked, that's what we'll believe.
That assume bad faith(heh) on the part of the observer. I'll believe whatever appears to be true. I may be biased towards a conclusion, but sufficient evidence can sway my conclusions. It's happened before and I'm sure it'll happen again. It helps that I don't have anyone telling me to seek experiences that reinforce my existing beliefs.
Of course a much simpler definition of a miracle for me is "that which would convince me of the existence of God and his nature." Presuming he is omnipotent and omniscient, he both knows what to do and how to do it even if I don't.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The trouble with concepts like "miracle" and "supernatural" is that what qualifies in either category is pretty much a matter of subjective opinion. For instance, if God exists there really isn't any reason to consider Him any less "natural" than many of the other strange things out there that exist. And if some bizarre phenomenon happens, there is no real reason to call it a "miracle" instead of "something yet to be explained".
Given this, I'm not sure either concept can be relied upon to make any sort of strong argument for or against anything.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
Yes, well in the supposedly crappy example miracle I gave, you couldn't explain it away using natural understanding. You just said, "There must be a non-miraculous explanation for this-I just don't know it yet."
Your perspective renders impossible any miracles to begin with. It's hardly a point in your favor therefore that you wouldn't believe in a miracle.
I'm sorry, but I didn't say "There must be a non-miraculous explanation for this-I just don't know it yet."
I said we would need a doctor to check for the injury and healing, and to be completely convinced would need to see it happen more than once.
Seeing something once with absolutely no investigation isn't terribly convincing to me.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, if God exists there really isn't any reason to consider Him any less "natural" than many of the other strange things out there that exist
Well, the Universe seems to operate by some strict rules. The arbitrary violation of those rules is as good a definition of supernatural as any. That does leave a lot of room for "something yet to be explained" but I think that we know enough about how some of those rules work that there could be supernatural events which could not be easily explained as just natural phenomena which we do not yet understand.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I saw it in person, and we had a doctor to indicate that both the person was really injured in the first place and then that the person was really healed...that would definitely give me pause.
If it was repeatable, that would put me well on the way to becoming a believer.
OK, so what you in fact said was, "First I would have to exhaust every conceivable natural explanation, and then I would be 'well on my way" to becoming a believer (in miracles)."
So in fact, you said what I said you said, basically: even if you exhausted every known possible natural explanation, you still would not be convinced it was a miracle.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm still not sure how you're using the term 'supernatural.' In its common definitions it doesn't really apply to deism in general; indeed, it seems contradictory to deism's very premises.
Anyhow, it's pretty clear Jefferson was a monotheist, though not a Christian (if that means that Jesus was the Son of God or a savior in any metaphysical way). The Waterhouse letter is probably the most conclusive evidence here.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I saw it in person, and we had a doctor to indicate that both the person was really injured in the first place and then that the person was really healed...that would definitely give me pause.
If it was repeatable, that would put me well on the way to becoming a believer.
OK, so what you in fact said was, "First I would have to exhaust every conceivable natural explanation, and then I would be 'well on my way" to becoming a believer (in miracles)."
So in fact, you said what I said you said, basically: even if you exhausted every known possible natural explanation, you still would not be convinced it was a miracle.
Wow. Even when you quote me, you get it wrong.
I said we investigate it. If there's a natural explanation, it's natural. If there isn't, then it very well may be a miracle.
If it only happened once, I'd probably label it a 'mystery'. But if every time a preacher prayed and laid hands on an injured person they were healed, I'd call that a miracle.
But either way I'm not going to be lenient with my testing parameters.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said we investigate it. If there's a natural explanation, it's natural. If there isn't, then it very well may be a miracle.
If it only happened once, I'd probably label it a 'mystery'. But if every time a preacher prayed and laid hands on an injured person they were healed, I'd call that a miracle.
This second paragraph is definitely not what you said before. Before you said that even if it was repeated, you would only be "well on your way". Now you're labeling it a miracle.
I don't mind disagreeing about stuff, but please don't get snippy with me about not getting your intent right when you're changing it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said we investigate it. If there's a natural explanation, it's natural. If there isn't, then it very well may be a miracle.
If it only happened once, I'd probably label it a 'mystery'. But if every time a preacher prayed and laid hands on an injured person they were healed, I'd call that a miracle.
This second paragraph is definitely not what you said before. Before you said that even if it was repeated, you would only be "well on your way". Now you're labeling it a miracle.
I don't mind disagreeing about stuff, but please don't get snippy with me about not getting your intent right when you're changing it.
"Well on my way" was being simplistic about it. Labeling something a mystery and then testing to see if it happens again is "well on my way" to believing, isn't it?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:In its common definitions it doesn't really apply to deism in general; indeed, it seems contradictory to deism's very premises.
If deists don't realize that their god is supernatural, that's their own failing.
As to the letter, I don't think Jefferson's clear dislike of Calvinism is evidence for his own monotheism. His mention of the Quakers is telling: what he dislikes is faith without works, and paradox, and logical impossibility. He sees all these things in Trinitarian religions, which is why he prefers the monotheistic alternatives; it's not like espousing Buddhism or atheism would be practical for him in that situation, especially considering his audience.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Implicit in the definition of a miracle is being unable to explain it away using natural understanding.
That might be implicit in your definition of a miracle, but it sure isn't in mine.
Well then, what's your definition?
A miracle is anything wondrous. Babies are miracles. A rainbow is a miracle. Agates. Starfruit. Evolution. Fractals. Sand Dollars. Friendship.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Isaac Newton was an anti-Trinitarian, and possibly a Unitarian.[9]
The formation of a distinct Unitarian denomination dates from the secession (1773) of Theophilus Lindsey (1723–1808) from the Anglican Church, on the failure of the Feathers petition to parliament (1772) for relief from subscription. Lindsey's secession had been preceded in Ireland by that of William Robertson D.D. (1705–1783), who has been called "the father of Unitarian nonconformity". It was followed by other clerical secessions, mostly of men who left the ministry, and Lindsey's hope of a Unitarian movement from the Anglican Church was disappointed. By degrees his type of theology superseded Arianism in a considerable number of dissenting congregations.
The Toleration Act was amended (1779) by substituting belief in Scripture for belief in the Anglican (doctrinal) articles. In 1813 the penal acts against deniers of the Trinity were repealed. In 1825 the British and Foreign Unitarian Association was formed as an amalgamation of three older societies, for literature (1791), mission work (1806) and civil rights (1818). (from the wiki on Unitarian theology, as opposed to Unitarian Universalism)
Well that's interesting. I wonder why they are called Deists and not Unitarians?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: A miracle is anything wondrous. Babies are miracles. A rainbow is a miracle. Agates. Starfruit. Evolution. Fractals. Sand Dollars. Friendship.
So nearly everyone can be sainted, then?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
JH: Is that what it really means? C'mon, I remember in my namesake's time when being a saint meant it took getting your head chopped off, picking it up, walking around, preaching, and then being buried on a site that would later be used for the *burial of French kings*.
Now you can program a fractal in five minutes and be called a saint? It looks like "saint" has become the religious equivalent of an "Assistant Manager" at McDonald's Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The trouble with concepts like "miracle" and "supernatural" is that what qualifies in either category is pretty much a matter of subjective opinion. For instance, if God exists there really isn't any reason to consider Him any less "natural" than many of the other strange things out there that exist.
Or any of the ordinary things. Exactly.
quote: Well, the Universe seems to operate by some strict rules.
Why?
edit to add: For a certain definition of "saint", we indeed could all be saints. In our church, we have niches that hold statues of saints; one of those is left empty "for the saints in our own lives".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to Paul, all Christians are saints.
Tom - I don't think Jefferson's criticism of Calvin is evidence of his own monotheism either. I do think his lavish praise for what he calls the true religion of Jesus - an ethical religion that springs from one true God - is evidence.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. That I figured was flattery aimed at the recipient of the letter, given Jefferson's other written opinions on the same topic.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to Paul, all Christians are saints.
So I could start addressing my Christian friends as St. Joanna, St. Christine, etc., and no one would get upset unless they think Paul is wrong, right?
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not seeing where Jefferson used the word saint. But you'll have to understand that with the tone of conversation right now, I'm reticent to share my real feelings on the matter.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were a doctor and this thread had been delivered into my ER i would be like 'we need 1500 cc's of chill, stat'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a whole lot of correspondence with Joseph Priestly, in which Jefferson expresses similar opinions, and some with John Adams as well.
He wrote to Benjamin Rush that Jesus corrected the religion of the Jews by adding true ethics to their monotheism; he wrote the same to Priestly. I really don't think that this consistency can be written off.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
