|
Many people today question whether religious or philosophical truth is possible to know. The Founding Fathers didn't.....and thankfully so.
On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence, making the fourth of July forever the nation’s official birthday.
The most famous lines of the Declaration of Independence read:
We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men [meaning mankind] 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.
There are many cultural, philosophical, and political dimensions and angles to the Declaration of Independence. This article will focus on one, namely the declaration of absolute truths and the rejection of relativism.
Philosophy professor and author Douglas Groothius explains that the Declaration’s author and signatories “argued their case by presupposing that truth was objective and knowable, that it rested on ‘the laws of Nature and Nature’s God,’ and that it supported their position against the British.”
This presumption of truth and the argument that objective truth underlined the American cause of independence and thus its claim to nationhood is one of the most important, and yet overlooked, facts of American history. The reason it is overlooked is because it opens the door to some rather uncomfortable questions – among them, the role of religion in public life.
One Nation Under God: America's Ultimate Truth Claim
According to the Declaration of Independence, God (referred to alternately as the “Creator,” “Nature’s God” and the “Supreme Judge”) created the universe and all life, intended all humanity to be equal, and endowed each human being with “unalienable rights” that include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Let there be no misunderstanding. These are not mathematical or scientific laws, nor are they material hypotheses. These are religious statements. What’s more, these “self-evident truths” are laid out in an emphatic manner which leaves no room for dissent!
The Founding Fathers were driving a stake in the ground, declaring that the United States of America would be dedicated to these “self-evident truths” and the “unalienable rights” of its people.
The truth is that the Founding Fathers established the United States of America on religious truth claims – and they brooked no dissent!
But…But…isn’t Truth “Relative”?
It has become fashionable in the postmodern West to reject absolute truth claims in the areas of ethics, morality and religion. While we can know truth in mathematics, say postmodernists, there is too much uncertainty in the arenas of faith or philosophy for certitude to be possible.
A 2002 survey by the Barna Group showed that Americans, by a 3-1 margin (64% to 22%), held truth to be “relative to the person and his or her situation.”
This survey, as disturbing as it is, is an inevitable reflection of what postmodernism has done to western culture. Postmodernism, broadly defined, refers to the questioning and/or skepticism of modernist movements and assumptions. In a philosophical, epistemological context, postmodernism essentially throws the door open on truth as well as reality itself.
Postmodern relativists have, in fact, challenged the ability of humanity to discern, understand, or grasp truth or knowable facts in virtually every area of enterprise – from history to archaeology to science to religion and even to language itself.
This represents a dangerous slide into a hopeless chasm of chaos and despair. Douglas Groothius explains that, according to this postmodern view, “all human eyes are hopelessly prejudiced” and “truth dissolves into endless perspectives, which are accountable to nothing outside of themselves.”
The Wisdom of the Founders
In contrast to postmodern relativism, the Founding Fathers held a general worldview that was shaped by an Aristotelian concept of Truth. Aristotle was one of the most influential philosophers in the development of western thought and was a pioneer of deductive logic and what has come to be known as the “Correspondence Theory” of Truth.
The correspondence theory of truth, inspired by Aristotle’s writings on logic as well as his famous syllogism model, holds that truth is that which “corresponds to reality” and that it is recognized through objective means.
Postmodern culture has increasingly veered away from the correspondent theory of truth, preferring instead more open-ended worldviews that respect feelings, choices, and imagination. But this was not the way or wisdom of the Founders.
John Adams declared that “it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.”
And Thomas Jefferson, though not a Christian, drove the point home emphatically in an 1817 letter to a friend:
The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings.
The Founding Fathers didn’t rest the claims of America’s nationhood or the claims of unalienable rights on the feelings of people – be they legislators, kings, or common ordinary citizens. They rested them on Nature’s God – or, according to Jefferson’s 1817 letter, the “King of Kings.”
This is both a religious claim and an Absolute Truth claim. For the Founders, they saw no automatic or necessary conflict between Truth and Religion (certainly not the core tenets of Judaism and Christianity). It’s a shame that many people today do.
The copyright of the article We Hold These Truths in Protestantism is owned by Brian Tubbs. Permission to republish We Hold These Truths in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Comments
Jun 23, 2007 7:01 AM
Pink :
. A decent article about a great subject, the Inalienable Rights of
human beings in the wild. . <i>"Philosophy professor
and author Douglas Groothius explains that the Declaration's author and
signatories 'argued their case by presupposing that truth was objective and
knowable, that it rested on 'the laws of Nature and Nature's God,' and that
it supported their position against the British.' . "This
presumption of truth and the argument that objective truth underlined the
American cause of independence and thus its claim to nationhood is one of
the most important, and yet overlooked, facts of American history. The
reason it is overlooked is because it opens the door to some rather
uncomfortable questions - among them, the role of religion in public
life."</i> . But, the "truth" that was
"arguable and knowable", Brian, what was that? . Was it
not the "Natural Rights" that We The People were attempting to
secure through the process of instituting our new government? The Rights
that human beings have when they live in the wild outside the rules of
civil government? Are not those rights that allow human beings to do and
think whatever it might be they want to do and think as long as they did
not usurp those same rights from other human beings? Are they not the
"Inalienable Rights" that our Founders alluded to in our
Declaration of Independence? Hadn't many American Colonists lived in or
close to the wild during the hundreds of years since the Landing at
Plymouth Rock? Isn't that what it was all about? Did not the Colonists
covet that relationship for each other and in opposition to the British
Monarchy? Weren't the Founders trying to get us as close to that
"Natural Condition" as was humanly possible? Didn't they want us
to live in a society unimpeded by the religious or any other ideological
convictions of our neighbors? Am I wrong, Brian? Am I? . .Has
anyone here ever lived in the wild? Does anyone know what it is like to be
completely alone with nature and with Nature's God? . How about
it, People? .
Jun 23, 2007 7:56 AM
Pink :
. I have reread your paper. . It uses spin and it has a
major flaw. . Do you want to discuss it? .
Jun 23, 2007 1:18 PM
Brian Tubbs :
It was a commentary article, so of course, it advances a position - and
some might describe that as "spin." I'm definitely open to
hearing your thoughts on it, though. As always - and I mean that sincerely.
Jun 23, 2007 1:59 PM
Pink :
. Right, your article is mostly spin. . Here is the place
with your major flaw: . <i>It has become fashionable in the
postmodern West to reject absolute truth claims in the areas of ethics,
morality and religion. While we can know truth in mathematics, say
postmodernists, there is too much uncertainty in the arenas of faith or
philosophy for certitude to be possible.</i> . Postmodernism is NOT about uncertainty--more to the point, it is in
search of the deepest and most effective understandings of truth. . Specifically, you pit Aristotle against deconstruction as you, yourself,
practice deconstruction. This is the major flaw in your thesis. . Your logic fails. . Also, in this statement under The Wisdom of
the Founders: . <i>Postmodern culture has increasingly
veered away from the correspondent theory of truth, preferring instead more
open-ended worldviews that respect feelings, choices, and imagination. But
this was not the way or wisdom of the Founders.</i> . How
about a specific example? . By the way, has someone told you that
the Founding Fathers were all in lock step with each other? Of course, some
of them were one hundred percent in favor of a religiously based society.
But, as a group, they were opposed to it. So, those cards you played about
John Adams and T. Jefferson's comments regarding the King of Kings don't
trump anything. I must say they sound good for someone who wants to believe
them as proof our Founders wanted America to be a Bible believing nation of
obedient Christians. . It appears you are using an obscure
definition of Post Modernism. .
Jun 24, 2007 10:46 AM
Brian Tubbs :
<i>By the way, has someone told you that the Founding Fathers were
all in lock step with each other?</i>
Of course not. But
there were SOME areas of agreement and/or some issues in which the RANGE or
SCOPE of disagreement was significantly narrower than is the case today.
There are guiding, overall principles upon which the Founders
(all of them) DID agree.
<i> Of course, some of them were
one hundred percent in favor of a religiously based society.</i>
Glad to hear you acknowledge that.
<i> But, as a
group, they were opposed to it.</i>
YOUR evidence for this
is.......?
Don't give me Thomas Paine. :) He was in the MINORITY
on the matter of religion, my friend, when it came to the Founders.
Also, this is where TERMINOLOGY becomes critical. If you mean by
"religiously based society," a society that is governed by a
denomination, organization, or group of "theocrat" type
elders...then...YES, you are correct. A majority of Founders - pretty much
all of them - rejected that.
If you, however, mean a society
that is GOVERNED by overtly religious principles and that pays official and
deferential respect to religious tradition and belief, then you are most
definitely WRONG.
Such a society is precisely what a majority
of the Founders WANTED!
<i> So, those cards you played
about John Adams and T. Jefferson's comments regarding the King of Kings
don't trump anything.</i>
Adams and Jefferson were two of
the MOST influential thinkers in early America. So, these quotes count for
a LOT in terms of what the founding generation thought and believed.
<i> I must say they sound good for someone who wants to
believe them as proof our Founders wanted America to be a Bible believing
nation of obedient Christians.</i>
Neither Jefferson nor
Adams were orthodox, evangelical, Bible-believers. I chose them
deliberately, because I'm NOT advocating the extreme that YOU think I am.
Jefferson and Adams wanted a society that respected and honored religious
(particularly Judeo-Christian) morality, but NOT one in which belief in a
certain sect was coerced. That is what I want as well.
Jun 24, 2007 2:39 PM
Pink :
. I had posted, " But, as a group, they were opposed to [a
religion based government]." , And Brian, asked,. . <i>YOUR evidence for this is.......?</i> . The
First Amendment. .
Jun 25, 2007 8:15 AM
Brian Tubbs :
Nice try, but the First Amendment didn't MEAN to the Founding Fathers what
the modern Supreme Court, the ACLU, the Americans United for the Separation
of Church and State, and presumably you today consider as its meaning.
The meaning of the First Amendment has, over the years, CHANGED.
That's a traceable historical fact. So, don't throw the First Amendment at
me, unless you're prepared to discuss what the FOUNDERS meant by the First
Amendment.
Jun 25, 2007 8:52 AM
Pink :
. You wouldn't admit to the truth here if you were able to question
the Ffounding Fathers and have them give sworn statements. You'd think they
were influenced by some thing or another. . You come here with
too much baggage. If the Founding Fathers had intended this nation to be a
nation based on religious principles (laws) they would have made that point
entirely clear. They were well aware of the pressures to have such laws in
place and that was part of the reason the wanted a Bill of Rights with in
the Constitution. . You KNOW that. . .
Jun 25, 2007 8:58 AM
Brian Tubbs :
We need to FLESH out a distinction here. I think a key aspect of our
exchange here is what we each understand when we use the term
"religious principle." You seem to think in terms of a religious
organization or denomination handing down an edict as a law that will be
binding on the society. I don't see it that way. If I did, then I'd be in
agreement with you.
The Founders believed that, if you combine
all the Christian denominations and all the major world religions (namely
Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) into a Venn Diagram of sorts...
Then - in the overlap, in the intersections - you'd have some COMMON,
religiously-inspired principles that can and should make up our moral and
social foundation.
Does that make sense?
Jun 25, 2007 12:48 PM
Pink :
Quick definitions (principle) # noun: a basic truth or law or
assumption (Example: "The principles of democracy") # noun:
a rule or law concerning a natural phenomenon or the function of a complex
system (Example: "The principle of the conservation of mass") # noun: a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be
used as a basis for reasoning or conduct (Example: "Their principles
of composition characterized all their works") # noun: a rule or
standard especially of good behavior (Example: "A man of
principle") # noun: rule of personal conduct # noun: (law)
an explanation of the fundamental reasons (especially an explanation of the
working of some device in terms of laws of nature) (Example: "The
principles of internal-combustion engines") . -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- / Christian, Jewish, and Islamic principles are very specific
and can be detailed into doctrines and dogmas. . Maybe you'd
like to use a different word than principle? . Different people
believe all sorts of things and that is precisely what the Founding
Fathers deliberated on the ideas of Natural and Civil Rights. And, it is
specifically why we do not have a law that dictates any religious
principles per se. .
Jun 26, 2007 1:57 PM
Brian Tubbs :
Okay, what do you do with this quote from the father of our country?
<i>Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would
that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these
great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men
and citizens . . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that
morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to
the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason
and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail
in exclusion of religious principle.</i>
Jun 26, 2007 2:00 PM
Brian Tubbs :
And this one by Mr. Adams...
<i>"[I]t is religion and
morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can
securely stand."</i>
Jun 26, 2007 3:28 PM
Pink :
. I think, was that person a Mason? .
Jun 26, 2007 3:29 PM
Pink :
. I don't see a problem with that one either. .
14 Comments
|