(04-09-2009 02:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2009 02:10 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Dr. Torch - it's not clear to me who you're advocating concede. I cannot recall any writing by any deist where the mode of thinking regarding morality and ethics differed from other materialists. The primary difference between a deist and a putative "pure Materialist" is singularly with regard to the origin of the universe.

I respectfully disagree. Although I cannot say for certain what literature you've read from deists (and it's probably more than I) the deist can, does, and probably should, consider ethics to be derived from the Creator. Beauty also is likely sourced from the creator. It is also possible that a deist would consider logic to have it's basis in the Creator, although I can see where some would base it on the creation.

Well. I'll leave as an assertion for now that the Deist worldview is at least in part Materialist. I don't know how you could argue that Jefferson did not ascribe to that view given his self-described "creed of materialism". You could probably conclude quite a bit just from the title of two of the major deisitic works - Thomas Paine's "Age of Reason" and Ethan Allen's "Reason: the Only Oracle of Man". I'll try not to overstate the amount that I know and understand deistic thinking. But, I think we're all subject to projecting our own conceptions of god, ethics, and morality onto their works. Additionally, Deism is not a monolithic philosophy and no two of these folks necessarily shared the same ideas.

(04-09-2009 03:17 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-09-2009 02:40 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2009 02:10 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Dr. Torch - it's not clear to me who you're advocating concede. I cannot recall any writing by any deist where the mode of thinking regarding morality and ethics differed from other materialists. The primary difference between a deist and a putative "pure Materialist" is singularly with regard to the origin of the universe.

I respectfully disagree. Although I cannot say for certain what literature you've read from deists (and it's probably more than I) the deist can, does, and probably should, consider ethics to be derived from the Creator. Beauty also is likely sourced from the creator. It is also possible that a deist would consider logic to have it's basis in the Creator, although I can see where some would base it on the creation.

Well. I'll leave as an assertion for now that the Deist worldview is at least in part Materialist. I don't know how you could argue that Jefferson did not ascribe to that view given his self-described "creed of materialism".

I did write that I thought Jefferson was among the most deistic of the founding fathers. We may be in violent agreement here.

the materialism of the Soviets(and the thinkers behind it, Hegel, Nietczche, Marx...) is not the same thing as what some of the founders meant by 'materialism'. The commies were more rational.

don't have time to look this stuff up at the moment, but one thing I will post is Franklin's call for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention. Note his mention of the Tower of Babel, the first recorded attempt at Socialism in history, its also in the same book that produced the opposite with the Abrhamic call(capitalism) which they followed.

Quote:In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the Contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, & they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move — that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service —

-Benjamin Franklin

http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0628.htm

(04-09-2009 03:35 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(04-09-2009 03:17 PM)I45owl Wrote:  Well. I'll leave as an assertion for now that the Deist worldview is at least in part Materialist. I don't know how you could argue that Jefferson did not ascribe to that view given his self-described "creed of materialism".

I did write that I thought Jefferson was among the most deistic of the founding fathers. We may be in violent agreement here.

I thought the question at hand was whether Deist implied Materialist.

GGNiner - have you made any effort to provide a credible source for the following quote? It just seems grossly out of character from what I've seen about Madison for him to publicly say something like this.

In another thread,

(04-08-2009 10:10 AM)GGniner Wrote:  ever wonder just where the "Father of the Constitution", James Madison got his idea to divide the Government into 3 branches?

at the Constitutional Convention he read Isaiah 33:22, The Perfect Governor, and cited it as the source for our 3 branches of Govt.


“For the LORD is our judge, [judicial]
the LORD is our lawgiver, [legislative]
the LORD is our king; [executive]
He will save us.”

(04-09-2009 03:46 PM)GGniner Wrote:  don't have time to look this stuff up at the moment, but one thing I will post is Franklin's call for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention. Note his mention of the Tower of Babel, the first recorded attempt at Socialism in history, its also in the same book that produced the opposite with the Abrhamic call(capitalism) which they followed.

Regarding Franklin - this is an instance where you can clearly say Franklin differed substantially from other Deists of the time, and Franklin was a self-described "thorough Deist". As with any other creed, there is a spectrum of belief.

http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excer...frank.html Wrote:Before I enter upon my public appearance in business, it may be well to let you know the then state of my mind with regard to my principles and morals, that you may see how far those influenc'd the future events of my life. My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist. My arguments perverted some others, particularly Collins and Ralph; but, each of them having afterwards wrong'd me greatly without the least compunction, and recollecting Keith's conduct towards me (who was another freethinker), and my own towards Vernon and Miss Read, which at times gave me great trouble, I began to suspect that this doctrine, tho' it might be true, was not very useful. My London pamphlet, which had for its motto these lines of Dryden:

"Whatever is, is right. Though purblind man Sees but a part o' the chain, the nearest link: His eyes not carrying to the equal beam, That poises all above;"

and from the attributes of God, his infinite wisdom, goodness and power, concluded that nothing could possibly be wrong in the world, and that vice and virtue were empty distinctions, no such things existing, appear'd now not so clever a performance as I once thought it; and I doubted whether some error had not insinuated itself unperceiv'd into my argument, so as to infect all that follow'd, as is common in metaphysical reasonings.

I grew convinc'd that truth, sincerity and integrity in dealings between man and man were of the utmost importance to the felicity of life; and I form'd written resolutions, which still remain in my journal book, to practice them ever while I lived. Revelation had indeed no weight with me, as such; but I entertain'd an opinion that, though certain actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it, or good because it commanded them, yet probably these actions might be forbidden because they were bad for us, or commanded because they were beneficial to us, in their own natures, all the circumstances of things considered. And this persuasion, with the kind hand of Providence, or some guardian angel, or accidental favorable circumstances and situations, or all together, preserved me, thro' this dangerous time of youth, and the hazardous situations I was sometimes in among strangers, remote from the eye and advice of my father, without any willful gross immorality or injustice, that might have been expected from my want of religion. I say willful, because the instances I have mentioned had something of necessity in them, from my youth, inexperience, and the knavery of others. I had therefore a tolerable character to begin the world with; I valued it properly, and determin'd to preserve it. . . .

Owl, nope other than googling a little. Found a few reported sources, but can't confirm they are right(aren't online anywhere, would need to track down the books and see what their source is). I've read that a few times and was just something that jumped to my mind at the time., which is why I wrote it, it could be made up(fake but accurate , maybe not....

I'll give you few things, while not related to the Constitutional Convention so much(other than the last):

http://books.google.com/books?id=KmYUAAA...t&resnum=6

just search for James Madison under that w/search feature. that is an old book(1800's that was out of print and is now back in print and billed as the ACLU's nightmare.
search for Benjamin Franklin and Thomas jefferson or whoever while there, if interested. Given what Madison did while in office paticularly, I find it hard to beleive he wasn't a beleiver

also: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

and I haven't read through all of this but here are some of James Madisons notes at the Constitutional Convention:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?col...&recNum=83

see point 18 on enlarged photocopy. There are alot of pages with stuff on them

Most of the google results I've seen on Madison/Isaiah are crap (ans in uninformative) ... that's why I tried to shift the burden to you. There are a lot of fraudulent/unsubstantiated claims about who said what or didn't say what. Most of them are easier to validate or debunk as appropriate, but I didn't see anything other than assertions without substance on this one.

(04-14-2009 04:49 PM)GGniner Wrote:  Given what Madison did while in office paticularly, I find it hard to beleive he wasn't a beleiver

I'd like a more specific statement than this. If you're talking about authorizing a day of prayer or some such thing, I think he later admitted this was a mistake. Madison is distinguished by the fact that he went to seminary as a youth but left after a year, and as far as I could see never says another word about religion. And, he apparently stuffed cotton in his mouth with all of the "f"s in his writing where there should be "s"es.

Detached Memoranda

James Madison Wrote:Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation.
...
Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

My opinion of the editorializing of the LOC section on religion is that it's politically motivated and is basically a tribute by the party in power at the time to religious right interests ... to the extent that it editorializes, it's crap (though I don't question that it contains historically accurate documents).

The "Christian forebearance" phrase appears somewhere else of note - I thought perhaps the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, but that stands IMHO as a declaration of deism for all who signed (probably not knowing that influence was there). There's no question that all of the founding fathers were raised with Christian training. I'm not sure what it means for someone of that time to use that phrase (an interestingly contemporary, but irrelevant link).

I've been told in various context that "I'm a good person for an atheist", that I've done a very Christian thing ... although declining to take those comments as a jumping off point for a debate, I considered them both to state the same message, albeit in a very misguided way (as I've seen many Christians do things I'd never want to be associated with and many others that I could only hope to weakly emulate).

(04-08-2009 02:02 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Guess what? We really didn't get change.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg....DTL&tsp=1

Imagine that, Obama was lying.

YES. Imagine that, such an unbelievable transformation. That transformation is equivalent of ObamaMessiah becoming a John Bircher.

(04-15-2009 01:02 AM)I45owl Wrote:  Most of the google results I've seen on Madison/Isaiah are crap (ans in uninformative) ...

the cited that is most often cited is:

Teaching and Learning America’s Christian History: The Principle approach by Rosalie Slater

which is an old book, but can be bought on Amazon. don't have a copy myself, wouldn't suprise me if it was a statement read by his mentor, John Witherspoon who was also a Founder. not sure

Quote:I'd like a more specific statement than this. If you're talking about authorizing a day of prayer or some such thing

well, day of prayer and call for humility after war, using Federal dollars to purchase Bibles to be distributed...going to church regularly in the Capital buildings. Read a little of that old book, I linked above.

Quote:There's no question that all of the founding fathers were raised with Christian training. I'm not sure what it means for someone of that time to use that phrase

yep, which means they had a Judeo-Christian and Biblical worldview, like their cousins accross the pond. The Founders were heavily influenced by the Puritans and legally by Blackstone and montisqueu. Which would lead to viewing Rights as coming from their Creator, which Madison most certainly beleived in and would be an impossibility for an atheistic worldview(humanism).

Had they not come from a Biblical Worldview, the country would be a much, much, different place. The Declaration of Independence is a complete rejection of philosophical Materialism.

Quote: (as I've seen many Christians do things I'd never want to be associated with and many others that I could only hope to weakly emulate).

I would be the first to say that there have been many people and even Churches that have been anything but biblically Christians or Godly.

The Catholic Church and its Pope that controlled Spain in the 17th Century was every bit as Evil and in control by Satan, as Hitler or the Soviet Union was....getting back to one of my original points here.

also, Madison helped develop the Virginia Constitution before the US version. This is the "Christian Forebarance" and acknowledgement of a Creator ..

which included ..

Quote:Bill of Rights, XVI:

"That religion or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other."

it was near as explicit as other State Contitutuions at the time however.

Quote:Art. 22. Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall take the following oath, or affirmation, if conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, to wit:

"I, A B, will bear true allegiance to the Delaware State, submit to its constitution and laws, and do no act wittingly whereby the freedom thereof may be prejudiced."

And also make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

"I, A B, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."

And all officers shall also take an oath of office.

the founders were, and rightly, against State mandated religion at the Federal level. They apparently didn't care what the individual States themselves did. As it should be, its the same worldview first layed fourth....and in this casing using a mighty big stick to get there, by Strongly Christian/Puritian, Oliver Cromwell.

firecely anti-catholic church/govt., who understood the importance of Liberty of Conscience and Religious Liberty to an Open Society. That worldview is largely what paved the way to "Freedom of Religion"(not From it).