Religious Views of the Founding Fathers Part II

Part One: http://athphil.blogspot.com/2018/04/religious-views-of-founding-fathers.html

            In this portion of my final report I will be covering on a few more founding fathers (and mothers!). Looking through the many funding leaders’ religious views, it’s incredibly interesting to hear and see the rhetoric that surrounds the founding of our country. With that being said, let’s continue learning about the religious views of our founding leaders!

George and Martha Washington

            George Washington’s religious character is one of debate, so I think it is best to start with his wife: Martha. Martha was a devout Christian who prayed regularly, attended services whenever the doors were open, and would read from the family Bible daily. Martha also entertained herself by reading religious literature for pleasure and spiritual edification. Martha also wrote down stories from her testimonies and devotionals, but it is believed that these were among the documents burned after the death of her husband, George (“George Washington and Religion”, n.d.).

            George Washington was the “great, great grandson of Lawrence Washington, an Anglican pastor.” (“George Washington and Religion”, n.d.). Washington’s mother was incredibly religious, and he was raised in the Anglican faith. However, his church participation is sporadic and has left some historians to ponder if he was truly a believer. Washington did serve as a Church official for several years, but he would often leave church early.

            During the Revolutionary War, Washington never directly addressed his faith. Rather, he used vague terminology to connect with soldiers from all religious groups. Washington understood the importance of religion, and he certainly was not uninterested in the concept. However, he also understood that the best way to fight the British was with a unified force, and so he largely kept his religious views to himself. There are reports from Washington’s nephew that he would kneel once in the morning and once in the evening in private prayer, but there are no written records of private correspondence that mention his faith (www.virginiaplace.org, n.d.). Washington’s religious faith is often manipulated by various groups. Christians portray him as a devout Christian, Deists portray him as a Deist, and atheists will even portray him as an atheist. This is done to help bolster the rhetoric around their cause. Many different groups claim that Washington was in line with their beliefs, and there is usually evidence to support their claims. However, most historians agree that Washington did believe in an active God that looked down and aided his children.

Alexander Hamilton

            Alexander Hamilton is one of the most famous founding fathers—largely thanks to Lin Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton: An American Musical. Although, before this musical many secularists knew him as the founding father who said “We forgot” when asked why God was left out of the Constitution. Hamilton’s religious views changed throughout his life. As a young boy, Hamilton was reportedly a pious Christian (Veith, 2014).  However, as he matured he experienced intense hardships. Because he was a bastard he was ridiculed by the churches in his area. Furthermore, he experienced the death of his mother and his uncle. During the Revolutionary War and the formational following years, Hamilton began to identify as a Deist. Like Martha Washington, Elizabeth Hamilton was incredibly religious. The Hamilton family rented pews from the Trinity Episcopalian Church, and Elizabeth had all of her children baptized. Like George Washington, Hamilton rarely attended the services and would often leave early (Rossano, 2011). However, after the death of his son Phillip and the French Revolution, Hamilton began a gradual return to his faith. For Hamilton, religion was the basis for all law and morality. In a fragile, new country law and stability were essential, and religion could help ensure the stability of the country. Hamilton allowed this religious view to influence his work on Washington’s farewell address (Veith, 2014). Furthermore, Hamilton’s final words were incredibly religious. After his infamous duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton spent the next thirty hours on his deathbed floating between in and out of consciousness. In his final hour he uttered the words, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me” (“Alexander Hamilton”, n.d.).  Hamilton’s views may have shifted throughout his life, but at his end it is safe to say that he was devoutly Christian.

Conclusions

            The founding figures of the United States were incredibly diverse in their religious views. From outspoken Atheists to devout Christians, the men worked together to forge a new nation. Their cooperation was not without conflict, but their religious and political differences did not drive them a part. While turmoil in the new nation was high, I believe there is a lesson to be learned from them. The country is currently wrapped up in returning to God. Returning to being a “Christian Nation”. I believe that it is important to realize that we were not founded with the intent of being a Christian nation. It is essential for people of all religions (or lack thereof) to live together in unity. Not only does this create stability, but it opens up the country to new ideas and new experiences. (A)Religious diversity can be a strength for our country, if we as a nation can come together and understand that the founding fathers gave us the freedom of AND from religion.

Works Cited:

Alexander Hamilton. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2018, from http://www.faithofourfathers.net/hamilton.html           

George Washington and Religion. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2018, from http://www.mountvernon.org/digital-encyclopedia/article/george-washington-and-religion/

George Washington and Religion. (n.d.). Retrieved April 30, 2018, from http://www.virginiaplaces.org/religion/religiongw.html

Rossano, M. J. (2011, May 25). Alexander Hamilton's Religion: A Temperate Example For Today's Fractured World. Retrieved April 30, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-j-rossano/hamiltons-religion_b_803677.html

Veith, G. (2014, July 15). Alexander Hamilton on religion. Retrieved April 30, 2018, from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2014/07/alexander-hamilton-on-religion/

How Dare You Call Me a Fundamentalist Part II

Review of How Dare You Call Me a Fundamentalist Part II

(Link to part I: https://athphil.blogspot.com/2018/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html)

            Continuing from where I left off on the first installment, I was reviewing some of Dawkins’s responses found within his essay How Dare You Call Me a Fundamentalist. In my last post, I provided a review and analysis of this essay. I will finish that review in this post, as well as defend Dawkins’s stance found within this essay, and in The God Delusion.

            “You ignore the best of religion and instead . . . ‘you attack crude, rabble-rousing chancers like Ted Haggard, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, rather than facing up to sophisticated theologians like Bonhoeffer or the Archbishop of Canterbury,’” (Dawkins). In response to The God Delusion, many religious and non-religious readers accused Dawkins of focusing on religious fundamentalists, while not acknowledging those quieter religious people who do not feel the need to publicly defend (or profess) their beliefs. Even though the point of the book is to make a case against fundamentalism, these readers have a point; focusing on the fundamentalists of religion is quite similar to the religious focusing on the ‘fundamentalists’ of atheism. His response, however, is this; “If subtle, nuanced religion predominated, the world would be a better place and I would have written a different book. The melancholy truth is that decent, understated religion is numerically negligible,” (Dawkins). The point he is trying to make here is that his book was written to contest the views of those who are much louder about their religious beliefs, because those are the ones who spread this ‘fundamentalist’ ideas, and because this particular group publicly outnumbers the quieter group.

            This can be found in much of the United States. In a country founded over two hundred years ago on the belief that, among other things, individuals should have the right to choose their own beliefs without having someone impress beliefs on them, such as the government, we still see many citizens advocating for a merge of church and state. To name an example that we discussed in class, our forty-first president George H. W. Bush is quoted in saying, “No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God,” (Bush), at a press conference regarding religion in America that took place in 1987 at the O’Hare airport in Chicago. People such as this example are the fundamentalists that Dawkins refers to.

            “You’re preaching to the choir. What’s the point?” (Dawkins). Another response Dawkins received from other non-believers is that many advocates of his book are ones who have already adopted his stance, or a similar stance, regarding religion. Given its harsh name, and harsh tone, many people who hold opposing views to this book probably would not give it a chance. Because of this harshness, many non-believers contend that he did not reach his intended audience, which would be those with strong religious beliefs.

            Dawkins’s response to this shows that he did not merely intend to criticize and condemn those who oppose his beliefs; he also wrote this to help encourage those who already share his beliefs to be more vocal and open about them. “The nonbelieving choir is much bigger than people think, and it desperately needs encouragement to come out,” (Dawkins). When you live in a country that most people perceive as a “religious state,” as many believe the US to be, it may be hard to express an opposing belief that you may hold. In this sense, The God Delusion serves as an invitation to other non-religious people to be more vocal about their beliefs, if by no other way than by showing them that they are not alone.

            To conclude, I will provide my response to The God Delusion. Personally, I found the book to be very inspiring. As a self-proclaimed non-believer, I find his writings to be reinforcing of my own beliefs (or perhaps lack thereof), for the simple fact that it is a reminder that I am not alone. I have no personal problems with religion, or with people who subscribe to any religion. And I would go as far as to claim that Dawkins did not intend to personally attack any person who holds beliefs that oppose his own. Rather, his intentions were to aid fellow non-believers in their approach against religiosity, as well providing an alternate view of the idea of religion for those who have subscribed to those beliefs. However harsh and relentlessly unapologetic his tone was, his point is one that desperately needed to be made. If he had chosen to write in ‘nicer rhetoric,’ as I stated in the previous installment, his message may have fallen short, or not reached as many people as it has.

Link to the essay:

http://sith.phy.bg.ac.rs/arhiva/BIBLIOteka/270ScienceBooks/Richard%20Dawkins%20Collection/Other%20Articles/Richard%20Dawkins,%20How%20dare%20you%20call%20me%20a%20fundamentalist.pdf

George H. W. Bush quote:

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:George_H._W._Bush

Final Post for A&P

Declaration of Independence

In the previous post, I mentioned that Danielle Allen had pointed out a punctuation error that is maintained and perpetuated by the National Archives.

Here are two versions, see if you can identify the difference and why it is important:

                  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

                  We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I have read both versions multiple times and didn’t reflect on the difference. However, a philosopher would recognize the rhetorical difference that Jefferson was aiming for. As Allen’s elaborates, he was creating a syllogism with “three truths: one about human beings, one about government, and one about revolution. The truth about human beings, though, is a three-part truth.” By employing a period as in the first one above rather than a comma you disrupt the syllogism. Allen suggests that the complete syllogism should look like the following:

“Premise 1: All people have rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Premise 2: Properly constituted government is necessary to their securing these rights.

Premise 3: [All people have a right to whatever is necessary to secure what they have a right to].

Conclusion: All people have a right to a properly constituted government.”

If you omit premise 3, you can see the difference in meaning. If this has taught me one thing, it is to be a careful reader and think about not only the wording, but also the punctuation.

Matthew Stewart’s book, Nature’s God: The Heretical Origins of the American Republic exposed me to some individuals who played a major role in the American Revolution but whose names have been largely forgotten or deliberately omitted because of their views on religion. It also encouraged me to read three additional books, all three of which I would highly recommend. Danielle Allen’s Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality. Carl Becker’s The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, and William Hogeland’s Declaration: The Nine Tumultuous Weeks When America Became Independent, May 1-July 4, 1776.

Hogeland’s book added some additional details to Stewart’s “gang of six” –Thomas Young, James Cannon, Christopher Marshall, Thomas Paine, Timothy Matlack, and Dr. Benjamin Rush. The first three met secretly with John and Samuel Adams after a failed vote on May 1, 1776 to elect Pennsylvania assembly men who would have supported independence. Sam Adams had instructed the attendees to burn any notes of the meeting, fortunately Marshall kept a diary of the discussion otherwise it would have been lost to history.

In my opinion as wonderful a document as the Declaration of Independence is, it was Sam Adams who deserves a lot of credit for moving independence forward. For over ten years while he lived in Massachusetts, he poured fuel on the anti-royal, anti-Parliament government sentiments with relentless verbal attacks. After the outbreak of the conflict on Lexington green, he moved to Philadelphia, PA as a delegate to the Continental Congress and he realized early on the geographic and strategic position of Pennsylvania to the outcome of independence. It was part of the middle colonies dividing the northern and southern colonies; it separated the ideologies of Massachusetts from Virginia.

Pennsylvanians favored reconciliation over independence and the May 1^st election reflected that; they elected assembly men who agreed with that reconciliation. Supporters of independence would have understandably been disappointed in defeat, but not Sam Adams. He met within two days to map out the next strategy. In two months, he basically overthrew the existing government by creating a convention that would support independence and serve as a leader in encouraging other colonies to follow suit. Hindsight applauds his efforts, but also serves as a warning that one individual with a powerful cause in his mind and a message can sway a majority of the populace.

While we seldom hear about the significant role some individuals played in our independence from England, most of us have seen the pictures of the delegates prominently featuring Benjamin Franklin. Few know that several years before, Franklin was involved in working to overthrow the existing proprietary government of the Penn’s and replace it with a royal government responsive to the king. His efforts were thwarted by John Dickinson, but who is remember favorably today – Franklin of course. Of the “gang of six,” only Dr. Benjamin Rush was a signer of the Declaration of Independence.

As Becker explained in 1922, the Declaration wasn’t positively received. In fact, it was widely criticized and dissected by those who saw that its intent focusing on equality and freedom wasn’t what they had fully understood and they created state constitutions to rectify what they saw as an attack on the elite’s power. In 1848, women who weren’t part of the “created equal” part, heartened back to the Declaration to support their argument for enfranchisement and created their Declaration of Sentiments. This document did not receive the recognition that it deserved but will be more read in the next couple of years as we approach the 100^th anniversary of the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment.

Here's what it says:

http://www.womensrightsfriends.org/pdfs/1848_declaration_of_sentiments.pdf

I encourage you to read it.

I leave you with my final thoughts, it has been a great course for me, my life and my knowledge have been enriched by the professor, the students I have met in this class, the books that I have read, and the discussions we have had. Best wishes to you all.

Works Cited

Allen, Danielle. Our Declaration: A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2014.

Becker, Carl L. The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas. 1958 ed. New York: Vantage Books, 1942.

Hogeland, William. Declaration: The Nine Tumultuous Weeks When America Became Independent, May 1-July 4, 1776. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010.

Philosophy of Alan Watts (Final Report, Installment Two)

In the first installment of this final report, I touched briefly on Alan Watts' early life, as well as some of his lifetime achievements eventually ending, as it does for everyone, with his untimely death.  Now I will go into what has enthralled me of his Philosophies.  This will mainly feature brief summaries of his more interesting ideas, accompanied with a video or a link, so you may hear his beautiful voice for yourself.

So the first idea of his that I want to talk about, which stunned me when I first heard it, is the philosophy of things.  Watts says there are no such thing as things in the real world.  He asked high school students what things are, and they seemed to just give synonyms at first: like objects.  But, as he says, one clever girl raised her hand and said "a thing is a noun," and he takes this to be the best answer.  For Watts, things are not in the real world; things are only a part of speech.  He continues, adding that the natural world is "wiggly" and only when humans create things, do we start to see straight lines and perfect edges.  He concludes with a kind of silly sentence that makes me laugh every time I hear it: "But here are we, all sitting in this room, built with straight lines, but each one of us is as wiggly as all get out."

The second idea that I enjoy, which I touched on in my midterm report, is when he talks about "Whether or not to commit suicide."  Before tackling that topic, he talks about the idea for deists, that God is all around you, all the time.  And at a certain point, you tell God to go away, and you become an atheist.  But by doing so, you turn into a machine.  This is where he cites the Albert Camus theory, saying "Camus said there is really only one serious philosophical question, which is whether or not to commit suicide."  He follows this with a joke about how he believes there are at least four or five serious philosophical questions.  But he goes into this idea, saying if you have no theory of the universe worth betting on, then just give up; commit suicide.  But if you have a theory of the universe worth betting on, then you have a plan, then you have a reason to go on.  I believe this was his way of saying that atheism is the same as having no theory of the universe worth betting on, which may not sound very appealing to the majority of this class, but it is an interesting idea nonetheless.

He does not seem to be a firm believer in an afterlife, however, because he has another theory about the most frightening thing about death.  I think he believes it is possible, but not certain.  He says we all think we are afraid of death because we cannot imagine everything becoming nothing.  He says no, "the most frightening thing about death is there might be something beyond it, and you don't know what it is."

In one video I found, he pretends he is God for a bit, allowing people to ask any and all questions they had for God.  When asked "What is death?" Watts answered incredibly: "Death is an undulation in consciousness.  How would you know you were alive unless you had once been dead?"  This blew my mind.

Its around the 8 minute mark, but the whole video is interesting.

 

 

Finally, he has this idea: what if you could go to sleep tonight, and control your dreams?  Not necessarily lucid dreaming, but more of this: what if your dream was a 75 year lifetime?  Then you wake up, and maybe the next night, you dream again, this time another lifetime sized dream, living out all of your fantasies.  And this happens again and again, until after a few months, you desire something else.  So you get adventurous and decide to save a princess from a dragon, and face danger head on.  Then after awhile you would get bored of that, and figure out how to forget you were dreaming.  So you'd think it was all real.  And you'd eventually ask yourself how far you can take it.  How much can you abandon this power to the point of forgetting it was a power?  Finally, "you would dream where you are now.  You would dream the dream that you are living today.  That would be within the infinite multiplicity of choices you would have: Of playing that you weren't God."  This is where he states his idea that we are all God pretending we are not.

 

 

I have another idea.  This one has less to do with a theory of God, but more with a theory of sleep, and dreams.  What if this life is a dream.  What if you were once someone else, possibly named F. Scott Fitzgerald, or some other person, and that was a dream as well.  And before that, you were a woman during the American Revolution.  Perhaps our knowledge of history is really our own memories of past dreams.  This would certainly explain and make more appropriate the vagueness of history.  But let me throw in a little of God in there.  What if you are God, like Watts says, and these dreams are you running through trial and error in the idea of a Universe.  This, of course, would mean you are only God in the sense of being a creator, rather than an all perfect being.  I believe this to be an atheistic view in the sense that if I am God, there is no God for me.  It wouldn't make sense.  Which leads me to the coolest thought I think I've ever had: Is God, if he/she/it exists, an atheist in that sense?  This would have to be true, unless there is something I am overlooking.

So this concludes my final report on Alan Watts.  I hope it was enjoyable, and I certainly hope everyone has a theory of the universe worth betting on.  After all, according to Alan Watts, you'd only be figuring out yourself.

Look who's coming

Center for Inquiry presents
An Evening with Richard Dawkins & Carolyn Porco




DATE: October 30, 2018, at 7:00 p.m.
LOCATION: James K. Polk Theater
STARTING AT: $42.00 BUY TICKETS

Public On Sale: Thursday, April 26, 2018, at 9:00 a.m.

OVERVIEW

Join Richard Dawkins as he shares the stage with planetary scientist Carolyn Porco to discuss matters relating to science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The conversation will be followed by a Q&A and book signing.

A VIP reception will take place before each event. Only 50 VIP tickets will be available, so don’t wait to reserve your VIP spot!

Religion and Culture: Filling the Gap Religion Leaves Behind

Religion and Culture: Filling the Gap Religion Leaves Behind

It is without doubt that religion is in decline in many developed countries. More and more people are abandoning their religion and spending much less time going to church, reading their holy scriptures, and praying daily than the generations that preceded them. If religion is a product, it seems that people are less and less willing to buy these days. However, it is also without doubt that when developing the various aspects of human society, humanity did not develop things in neat, divided up boxes. Everything is connected and interrelated. Religion is connected with culture is connected with language is connected with social customs is connected with…you get the idea. It is clear that, regardless of the veracity of the teachings of any religion, religion as a social structure provided much more than just a common core for belief. Religion often provides community, a sense of identity, and a common goal to work towards. In certain times and places, even education could be found only from religious institutions. So, with that being said, what do we do with the knowledge of the decline of religion? I would like to examine the ways in which religion is interrelated with other aspects of human society and see what alternatives may be used to fill roles and functions left empty in the wake of religious decline.

            A rather simple way to look at how religion affects and shapes our lives apart from genuine belief is through holidays. In the United States, most popular holidays have religious roots. On Christmas, we celebrate the birth of Christ, on Easter we commemorate his death and resurrection, and on Halloween we remember when Jesus fed 5,000 people candy with only one Twix bar. Holidays also provide us a rather interesting example of how we can handle the decline of religion without losing part of our culture: we simply keep the parts of religion we still have use for. Maybe we no longer see the Bible as the ultimate source of truth, but we are still intrigued by the story of a blameless man ceaselessly loving the people who put him to death, and so we continue to celebrate the holiday of Easter even without the religious belief it was founded upon. It is as if we deftly picked religion’s pocket as it left the room. Yoink!

            Another example of services provided by religion is the convention of habitually going to church, or any place of worship. Church going creates community, a place where people repeatedly go and see familiar people that they can develop relationships with. At its best, church can provide people with a social safety net, capable of assisting them in the difficult parts of life. From my personal experience, church never really provided these things. My family never attended a church long enough to develop genuine relationships and so it never really contributed to my feeling of belonging, but many people report having the opposite experience and felt church gave them a place of safety and community. So, can we keep the positives of church without holding onto religious belief? Already, churches have formed that identify as secular, having no religious backings, and are more or less focused on providing the positives of church to their community without the religion.

           Every era of human society has its own unique and new problems. What to do with the vacuum left by religion is one of ours, and I think it needs to be handled seriously and with a sober mind regarding the benefits provided by religion. Most importantly, we should remember that secularism, like religious belief, is not an all or nothing situation. If we choose to, we can keep the fun parts of religion that still serve us, and leave behind the parts we no longer need.

http://bigthink.com/daylight-atheism/the-calgary-secular-church

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1357303916301438

https://athphil.blogspot.com/2018/04/mini-biography-of-alan-watts-final.html?showComment=1524880799167#c2886137493862374436

https://athphil.blogspot.com/2018/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-us-x-none.html?showComment=1524881641061#c6760416542351231743