In the second half of the Jefferson reading in the Portable Enlightenment Reader, Jefferson lays out some of the tenets of his religious belief, which he does not wish to make public but nonetheless is willing to share with a like-minded friend. We have looked at several other authors in this course who profess a belief in God. Would any of them have found anything to object to in Jefferson's profession of Christian faith? Would any have been in full-hearted agreement with Jefferson? Who do you have in mind? Which of Jefferson's religious assertions would be a problem (or point of agreement) for that person? As always, support your claims with evidence drawn from the text(s).
Deadline:
Posts
6 comments:
Jefferson seems to be using a combination of reason, and I would actually compare him to a nonbeliever sooner than to a believer (although it is clear he does believe in a Creator). Like Newton, he believes but makes conclusions about religion based on reason. For example, he asserts it does him no harm if his neighbor believes in twenty gods or no god at all (160). His arguments and passiveness towards religion may differ from Newton actively attributing things like the orbits in the sky to God, they both still give reasons to their views (even if Newton stretches the ideas). Jefferson might actually be more in agreement with Hume, with his idea of separation of church and state, and while they don't believe the same things, Jefferson understands the meddling of one in the other produces controversy, and the most secular of states seem to be the most at peace (162). Also, he does not seem to indulge in the theories of miracles, like Hume and Gibbon, but rather praises the idea of Jesus for the lessons he has taught as opposed to what made him "other-wordly." He "ascribes every human excellence; and believe he never claimed any other (163)". There are two positive things being done for the both the nonbeliever and the believer: Jesus is portrayed as a man worthy of reverence, but not because of superstitious miracles like his being born of a virgin or turning water to wine. Jefferson says it is better to take the lessons of Christianity, and possibly the morals, but neither to force them on others nor to bar any religion from having the same merit.
I think Julia's post is well said. I'm not sure that Jefferson is entirely a non-believer. He definitely rationalizes things and is pretty straightforward in his opinions.
For instance, he says, "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus, himself" (163). I think this is a valid statement that those who are more accepting of Christianity regardless of if it is corrupt or not, they are in support, would disagree it. Jefferson is being selective here and this almost seems like a political statement. He doesn't want the corruption but he wants to follow the "leader" and what he stands for.
Hume therefore would disagree because I think Hume might say that miracles may be able to fix some of the corruption and Jesus carries a different significance because of the miracles that Hume would so believe Jesus performed, as Julia alluded to.
However I feel Jefferson is taking a humanistic approach, placing value on Jesus as a person.
I don't think there is anything to suggest that Jefferson is a non-believer. He may not believe in the structure of the Church of England, but he believes in the basic principles of Christianity. In the passage that Lauren points out he states that "To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense he wished one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed to any other" (163). I think he is arguing that Christianity at its core is a pure system in which he believes. It is the system of church that has become corrupt. Therefore I would agree that Hume would not approve of this view because Jefferson is suggesting that regardless of an individuals belief in miracles, they can still be Christian and/or adopt the morals of Christianity. In many ways, Jefferson makes miracles irrelevant and because of this I would say most of the other authors we have read would have a problem with his view point.
Also, I liked Julia's point that it is better not to force Christianity on others. Jefferson advocates that Christianity can still be a valid belief for the individual, regardless of what his neighbor believes.
I believe that many of them would have an objection to Jefferson's profession. I believe that they would have the most opposition to Jefferson's argument about Jesus. "His parentage...wrote nothing himself" (pg. 164-165). Here he is saying that while he does not disagree with the idea of Jesus, he does disagree with what Jesus said/did. The people who had a strong belief in God would take offense to this.
As said above, it seems that Jefferson is a believer in God, just not the way the church is structured. The other writers we have read, who completely believe in God AND the church, would also disagree with him on this matter.
Jefferson was the founding father that input the theory of “the separation of Church and State”. It was no coincidence that his political theories were influenced by his theological ones. He stated that “it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or not god” (Kramnick 160). However if that same devout individual testifies in court, Jefferson insists on rejecting his statements. Jefferson thusly believed that there was a God but had no connection to the established corrupted churches of the day.
Newton’s letters signify the closest in resemblance to an almighty God without connection to an earthy religion. The proof in God existed in nature and stated “I see nothing extraordinary in the inclination of the earth’s axis for proving a Deity unless …making the Earth habitable towards the poles” (Longman 2797). To Newton, and like Jefferson, religion based on the divinity of a God’s son or the infallibility of the Catholic Church could not quantify the infinite world. Thusly the world “must have been the effect of counsel, Nor is there any natural cause which could give the planets those just degrees of velocity in proportion to their distances from the sun” (Longman 2796).
I agree that on first inspection, the use of reasons lends to believe that Jefferson may be closer to a non-believer. However, upon further review, it becomes apparent that his use of reason does not dispute religion, but merely investigates it. Jefferson does not unquestionably accept the religion, flaws and all. And there are probably a number of people that would have a problem with this (and many critics did).
During Jefferson's 1800 campaign for presidency, many critics argued he was unfit for office due to his unorthodox religious beliefs and his want for "separation of church and state." And I think that the following quote describes the same thought:
"I. Philosophers. 1. Their precepts related chiefly to ourselves and the government of those passions which, unrestrained, would disturb our tranquility of mind."
By separating church and state, there will no be any imposition of religion on "neighbors."
Post a Comment