Saturday, June 26, 2010

Frazer Replies to Knapton II

This was Gregg's second response to Mr. Knapton:

I apologize, again, for responding tardily, but this is the first bloc of time I've had.

First of all, Mr. Knapton, my name is "Frazer."

Second, Mr. Knapton is the first person I've encountered who denies real significance and influence to deism in 18th-century America. In fact, the standard view among scholars is that most of the Founders -- including Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington -- were deists. I'm sure that Jonathan Edwards, who wrote about the danger of deism and John Leland, who wrote a two-volume work on deism in 1764 and Elihu Palmer, who wrote the "bible" of deism in 1801 would all be shocked. As would Peter Gay, Kerry Walters, E.Graham Waring, and other scholars who have written sizable works on its influence.

Third, if, as he says, Mr. Knapton's reference to Locke was not presented as proof to contradict my statement, then he offered no proof and my statement stands.

Fourth, I have not heard of “copy and past.” I have, however, heard of copy and paste -- but my dissertation is in WordPerfect format, so copy and paste will not work in this context.

Fifth, I, too, really dislike "cherry picking" and that is not what I did in presenting the quotes from Adams. The significance I gave to the quotes is precisely what the context demands, although Mr. Knapton's interpretation is quite creative. The point of the letter is to address the BASIS for the beliefs of the various groups. The portion left out in Mr. Knapton's transcription is very illuminating (and important). After identifying the BASIS for the beliefs of the first set of groups ("real or pretended revelation") , Adams addresses a belief of some Greeks [where Mr. Knapton simply puts "About the Greeks"]. There Adams says "On what prophecies they found their belief, I know not" [emphasis, again, on the BASIS for their beliefs]. He then identifies the BASIS for his belief and that of Jefferson IN COMPARISON TO that of the others and proclaims that he and Jefferson's "faith may be supposed by more rational arguments than ANY [my emphasis] of the former." The Christian belief which he mentioned [along with all of the others -- including the Greeks] is, of course, based on revelation. So, he is affirming that his belief places rationality above revelation (of various types -- including the Bible).

I did not launch into this discussion the first time because I thought the quotes clear enough to stand on their own.

Concerning the second quote: since Jonathan Rowe has commented (keenly) on Mr. Knapton's curious, but creative interpretation, I won't add anything except to wonder why one who purports to really dislike cherry picking left out the final sentence of the paragraph in his transcription. There, after saying nice things about the Bible and Christ, he says: "Where is to be found theology more orthodox, or philosophy more profound, than in the introduction to the Shasta [sic]?" The Shastra is a Hindu text! Also, he does not say that his philosophy is "derived from the Bible" -- he says that it "contains more" of his philosophy than all other books. And, in saying that he will further investigate the parts of the Bible which "seem not to be reconciled with his philosophy," he reveals that he does not accept them on the basis of being revelation, but must "investigate" them to see if they can be made to fit within his philosophy -- in other words, his reason trumps revelation.

Finally on this point, I have a PhD in political philosophy and my understanding of Locke was good enough to get me through PhD qualifying exams and several courses with nationally-recognized scholars. The fact that my "understanding" of Locke is different than that of Mr. Knapton perhaps says more about Mr. Knapton's "understanding" than mine.

Sixth, if Mr. Knapton was not suggesting that my term is illegitimate because it didn't exist at the time and was stating, instead, that the concept "simply has no foundation," then we have another case of Mr. Knapton simply declaring my arguments invalid without offering any proof for his claims. I have 440 pages of evidence from the Founders and 18th-century American preachers -- he has offered no evidence except thoughts of English empiricists, his creative interpretation of one of them [Locke], and his assurance that the American Founders believed everything that those British philosophers said. I'll take what the Founders actually said they believed over what Mr. Knapton simply claims they believed and I'll let the observant reader decide for him/her self.

Seventh, Jonathan addressed the "reason" question, so I won't bother except to remind Mr. Knapton and interested readers that there is a distinction between what I, as an evangelical Christian, believe and what the Founders believed. I place revelation above reason and I do not "want to use the term as a magic wand by which whatever you touch truth is revealed." The Founders used it as a basis for discovering and determining truth. If Mr. Knapton has a problem with that idea, he should take it up with the Founders -- not me.

Eighth, in my "vain-glorious rush for acceptance," I was using sarcasm. I apologize if it was not biting enough to be recognized.

Ninth, Mr. Knapton suggests that I need glasses because he says that he did not make a particular claim about what I had said. First, I have glasses already. Second, I referred to HIS comments about my statement in which he changed a key word in the point I made and replaced it with another word IN HIS COMMENTARY ON IT. A little "cut and paste" will show that he did what I said he did: my statement was: “Because virtually all religions promote morality, they believed that most religious traditions are valid and lead to the same God.” His commentary was: "However, they did not see all religious moral codes equal." So, I accused him of defeating a straw man argument because he attacked the idea that the Founders saw "all religious moral codes EQUAL [my emphasis]," but I did not make that argument. I made the argument that they believed that MOST religious traditions are VALID and lead to the same God [my emphases]. So, he changed MOST to ALL and VALID to EQUAL -- and, therefore, did not address my actual point, but rather one of his construction. I did not engage in "miss-quoting" -- or misquoting.

Tenth, contrary to Mr. Knapton's assertion, I do not assume for myself the right to decide who is a Christian and who is not. In fact, to avoid any such notion, I use the creeds, catechisms, and confessions ascribed to by the actual churches in America in the 18th century. As to Arianism, it was not declared heretical by the Catholic Church (in today's sense of the term), but by the ONLY church at the time (before the Protestant Reformation) -- a quite different church than that of the Middle Ages and one that has always been recognized as legitimate by Protestants. Furthermore, IN THE 18TH CENTURY (which is the period we're talking about), BOTH PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS CONSIDERED ARIANISM HERETICAL and recognized the Trinity and deity of Christ as A (not THE) central belief of Christianity.

Mr. Knapton then accuses me of saying that the Trinity is "the central tenant of the Christian faith." First, I said nothing about tenants (people who rent property), I talked about tenets (fundamental beliefs). Second, I did NOT say (again) what Mr. Knapton indicates that I said. I said that the Trinity is A central tenet -- I did not say that it is THE central tenet. For those who want to look it up, here's another "cut and paste": [most people can skip the following bracketed part]

[Eighth, Mr. Knapton accuses me of “unintended sophistry” in pointing out that the theistic rationalists did not believe that Jesus was God and he suggests that there was “a strain of Christian thought” which taught that Jesus was subordinate to God. Methinks the sophistry is one the other foot, however. Mr. Knapton refers, apparently, to the Arian or Socinian heresies, which the church had declared to be heresies — and not Christian doctrine — centuries before. On page 10 of my dissertation, I have a chart which outlines the basic core beliefs of the Christian denominations in 18th century America as expressed in their own creeds, confessions, and catechisms. Every Christian denomination in 18th century America affirmed the deity of Christ and the Trinity as basic core Christian beliefs. Mr. Knapton’s suggestion might appeal to groups which came along later and who CLAIMED to be Christians, such as Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses; but it doesn’t stand up to 18th century scrutiny. There were, of course, those who denied the deity of Christ and the Trinity (including the theistic rationalists), but they were considered “infidels” by 18th-century Christians.

If Mr. Knapton thinks that Christianity is “all about” Jesus being the savior of the world independent of His being God, then he and I have very different conceptions of what Christianity is “all about” — but, more importantly, he has a very different view than those we are discussing: 18th century American Christians.]

Note that I called the Trinity and the deity of Christ "basic core Christian beliefs" [plural], but did not in any way suggest or indicate that they were THE central beliefs -- but, rather, 2 of the 10.

Furthermore, I would not approach a Buddhist priest for a definition of Christianity -- apparently another difference between Mr. Knapton and myself. And Christians were called "Christians" because it means "little Christs," which is what Christians were recognized as aspiring to be -- followers of Christ (who, by the way, THEY understood to be God). Arianism didn't come along until the 4th century, so there was no reason to highlight the Trinity above other fundamental doctrines. Mr. Knapton's Christianity 101 course is quite different from my (an evangelical Christian) Christianity 101 and also quite different (and this is the point where this discussion is concerned) from the Christianity 101 course of 18th-century Americans.

Eleventh, Mr. Knapton then assured us again that deism and natural religion "died" in the "first half of the 18th-century" (no evidence, just his assurance) and that the idea that God PRIMARILY revealed Himself through nature died at the same time -- with no evidence to support such an astonishing claim -- just his affirmation.

Twelfth, regarding what Jefferson said about his approach to the Bible: I started to write a lengthy refutation of Mr. Knapton's argument on this point, but I'll just leave it to those who can read the earlier quotes from Jefferson making reason the sole judge with a fair and open mind and the following additional Jefferson quotes: "man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous," and "gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck" and "No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances towards RATIONAL Christianity." [my emphasis]

FINALLY, Mr. Knapton sums things up by suggesting that we've "learned" 6 things, but they're not very revealing and suggest that we've wasted a lot of time -- if, indeed, that's all we've "learned."

#1 [deism not significant] is a mere assertion on his part for which he gives no evidence and which flies in the face of the views of 18th-century contemporaries and modern scholarship.

#2 [cherry-picking charge] has been demonstrated in this entry to be false.

#3 [concept of theistic rationalism didn't exist] is another of his assertions without evidence and is circular logic -- using as evidence what you're trying to prove.

#4 [reason not magic wand] is meant as a shot at me, but misses the mark because I don't believe it to begin with -- and is irrelevant to the discussion because no one believes or believed it the way it's written.

#5 [I'm not doctor of divinity] is quite true -- but entirely irrelevant and, to my knowledge, no one has claimed the contrary. So, we've "learned" something that no one had an interest in learning and that many already knew.

#6 [Jefferson's motivation/method] is Mr. Knapton's conclusion which he arrived at (apparently) by completely ignoring the extensive evidence presented from Jefferson's own words concerning the role of reason in determining and evaluating potential revelation. His "un-rationalistic" remark also indicates that Mr. Knapton is under the false impression that there is only one kind/type of rationalism -- a misconception which has been dealt with in previous threads of this discussion. One can't help but wonder how Jefferson came to a "belief" that John 1 was mistranslated, since no sect was teaching such a "belief" and since, according to his own account, he made that determination himself based on his own personal analysis and would have been offended if someone suggested it were merely a "belief" and not a result of rational processes.

I submit that only Mr. Knapton has "learned" his six lessons.

15 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

Every Christian denomination in 18th century America affirmed the deity of Christ and the Trinity as basic core Christian beliefs.

Except the Christian unitarians.

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-were-unitarians.html

This goes in circles, because the dreaded "chart" is theological, not historical. A Jewish---or any impartial---observer would call them Christian---they accepted the Bible as Divine revelation, and Jesus as Messiah.

One might get into theological hairsplitting, like whether Sufis or Ishmaelites are truly "Muslim," and Muslims do [!], but they are more Muslim than anything any other term would cover. "Orthodox" Muslims, no, but socio-historically speaking, Muslims.

Again, it comes down to the battle of terms, usually instigated by the orthodox. But as Locke wrote, "For every church is orthodox to itself; to others, erroneous or heretical."

Frazer's offered substitution--- term---of "theistic rationalist" is for less informative than "heterodox Christian," even as he claims that his 440-page dissertation claims that "theistic rationalist" also carries the connotation of "Protestant." No doubt that's true, but his preferred term doesn't come with his dissertation as an instruction book.

When a Daily Kos reader sees "theistic rationalist," he thinks some sort of "deist," not Protestant. [Or even the casual American Creation reader.]

Indeed, Protestantism was still young in the Founding era: just because orthodox catechisms didn't accept it [preferring the Roman Church's dogma on the trinity], non-Trinitarianism was inevitable in Protestantism, since it rejected church-created dogma. No Pope [technically, Magisterium], no dogma.

The Lutheran reformer Melanchthon, commenting on [Michael Servetus'] "De Trinitatis Erroribus," lamented, "As for the Trinity you know I have always feared this would break out some day. Good God, what tragedies this question will excite among those who come after us!"

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

So, if "Christian nation" makes people puke, we still have "Protestant nation." Terms, terms, terms. Trying to sum up the Founding era political theology in a single phrase conceals more than it reveals.

King of Ireland said...

"When a Daily Kos reader sees "theistic rationalist," he thinks some sort of "deist," not Protestant. [Or even the casual American Creation reader.]"

Do not forget our friends at Dispatches. Many of them, if they ar honest, think that people that believe in God are in need of medication and therapy and live in what they tell me that PZ Myers calls "Crazy Town". Butttt they all will use up a guy like Frazer, who they think qualifies for crazy town, to mess with Christians and promote their agenda.

I assume if we get down to it you would have to believe that if they got into power those of us crazy enough to believe in God would not fare so well. Including Frazer whom the pimp till they do not need him anymore and then he would get locked up too I presume.

The Culture Wars are absurd and this term just give this nuts more ammo to fire with.

King of Ireland said...

these nuts not this

Tom Van Dyke said...

Including Frazer whom [they] pimp till they do not need him anymore and then he would get locked up too I presume.

Yes, they do pimp theological disagreements between Christians. But anyone "nuts" enough to believe God revealed himself in the Bible and that Jesus is the Messiah, they'd call a Christian without a blink. Then laugh at him, the superstitious fool.

King of Ireland said...

Tom,

I should have listened to you. It is a sewer and really a waste of time. I got so pissed today I wanted to scream. Part of me wants to go on their everyday and just take the gloves off and treat them like they treat the poor souls who actually dissent to their warped view of the world. But it is best to just leave them alone and focus on things like this blog that are actually productive.

King of Ireland said...

I used to disagree with you but I understand why you do not want them over here. I apologize for trying to get you to comment over there. I see what you have been through now with people like them. Not that it is everyone or even most of them. But the real assholes are so loud it sure seems so. I do find it telling that not one, other than Micheal Heath, has ever commented her. If I am so wrong why don't they come and have an honest discussion about it.

King of Ireland said...

Back to these posts and more specifically reason vs. revelation, Jon how about a post on what you mean when you say that reason trumped revelation. I am getting your point on this more than before but am still not clear. Or maybe Gregg can do it since he probably can put it into theological terms I can understand.

Hooker took the Puritians to task on looking down on reason but then thinking every whim they felt was a revelation from God. This sounds like what many of these guys are saying. I think a lot of it is probably over the trinity and original sin and these arguments go back long before Protestanism.

I think they are saying that these so called revelations violate reason so the Bible must not being saying what those that believe them think it does. Jefferson went pretty far and denied all miracles for sure but other than him I think their is some room for solid debate.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Mr. Heath brings facts to back his arguments. He is always welcome here.

King of Ireland said...

I got into a few times with Mr. Heath over there but overall respect him. I would have to differ though on him always bringing facts. He has stated that I am wrong about the DOI more than once and brought no facts to the table. I understand somewhat because it is hard to do so in the comments section of a blog but with that said one should not bring it up if he is not going to back it up.


On my way out the door there I challenged him to a debate to be moderated by Jon on the topic. I doubt he will take me up on it. If he does not my opinion of him will go down a notch. We shall see.

Gregg Frazer said...

Re Tom's "except Christian unitarians" response to my "Every Christian denomination in 18th century America affirmed the deity of Christ and the Trinity as basic core Christian beliefs": there was no unitarian denomination in America until the 19th century. So, my statement stands irrespective of Tom's claim that unitarians, who worshiped an entirely different god than did Christians, were Christians. While there were individual unitarians (and a couple of unitarian churches) who claimed to be Christians, every Christian denomination affirmed the Trinity.

Whether, in fact, God is Triune (three persons) or unitary (one person) is not a trivial matter which can be taken or left without fundamentally changing everything.

Second, I do not claim that my term "theistic rationalism" "carries the connotation of protestant." I argue that protestant Christianity was one of the formative influences on theistic rationalism, but I do not claim that the theistic rationalists were protestants. By rejecting the core of Christian doctrine and the principles of the Reformation, they moved outside the camp of protestantism, in my opinion. So, we do not "still have protestant nation," in my opinion.

As for the Daily Kos reader, he should not think deist or protestant when he sees "theistic rationalist," he should think theistic rationalist.

I don't quite see how a term such as "heterodox Christian" can be a "more informative" term for people who were not Christians -- unless "gray whale" is an informative term for a bird. As I understand the English language, for a term to be "informative," it must tell you something correct about its object. Calling people "Christian" who were not, in fact, Christian seems to me to be the opposite of "informative."

If you think, Tom, that the American protestant churches in the 18th century believed in the Trinity because it was Roman Catholic dogma, then you need to go back and read their views of the Roman church. They would be far more likely to reject a doctrine on the grounds that the Roman church taught it than they would be to accept it on that basis.

Once again, as for me being used by extremists for purposes of which I do not approve -- that cannot be helped. I won't take a position that I think is false just to keep those who are intellectually dishonest from abusing my work. Those who make hammers should not stop making them -- or make them out of styrofoam -- simply because someone might use a hammer to bash in a skull instead of drive a nail.

Many have abused the Bible itself for hundreds of years -- and, unfortunately, many have backed away from what the Bible clearly teaches as a result. While one should not cast pearls to swine, one also should not exchange the pearls themselves for costume jewelry.

King of Ireland said...

"So, my statement stands irrespective of Tom's claim that unitarians, who worshiped an entirely different god than did Christians, were Christians"

I see a lot of Calvinists state this but find it absurd. If they are worshipping the God of Exodus 34:5-7 then that is the God of the Bible. Do you maintain that Jews that had no concept of the Trinity were worshipping a different God?


I also would like to here your imput up the page on some of the wholes that Tom and I see with "Theistic Rationalist" I am confused by your use of reason trumps revelation and what revelation means. It seems Jon is too. It is hard to discuss it if we all are not using the same definitions.

Personal note:

I went back and read some of our exchanges and saw that you had coached hs football. I thought it was someone else stating it at the time. Where did you coach? I was assuming De La(I think that is what it is called) since you said you won a mythical national championship.

King of Ireland said...

"If you think, Tom, that the American protestant churches in the 18th century believed in the Trinity because it was Roman Catholic dogma, then you need to go back and read their views of the Roman church."

Thats not the charge Gregg. It is that the Protestants took a large part of Roman Catholic doctrine seemingly uncritically. This is not surprising considering that Luther was a monk. To be sure the real history of Constantine bullying people into excepting something they did not believe in has some bearing on things. By narrowing the years of your study of orthodoxy you minimize legitimate Christian debate prior to the Reformation and give a false impression that any of this stuff was new and enlightenment thinking. If the whole view of Christian history is looked at we realize that almost none of this was new and that Christians argued for centuries about most of it.

In other words, if we use your years the Unitarians are some fringe sect. But if we open the discussion up to the full scope of Christian history we find that it was about half of Christianity that did not believe in the Trinity at the time and that they were silenced by secular emperor looking out for his own political interests.

Gregg Frazer said...

I am on vacation out of town and only have a few minutes' access to a computer right now, so I'll answer the easiest/quickest question now and try to get to the others tomorrow or another day:

I coached high school football at Oaks Christian. We won Sports Illustrated's national championship in 2006. Our quarterback was Jimmy Clausen; our running back was Marc Tyler (Wendell Tyler's son).

Tom Van Dyke said...

Second, I do not claim that my term "theistic rationalism" "carries the connotation of protestant." I argue that protestant Christianity was one of the formative influences on theistic rationalism, but I do not claim that the theistic rationalists were protestants. By rejecting the core of Christian doctrine and the principles of the Reformation, they moved outside the camp of protestantism, in my opinion. So, we do not "still have protestant nation," in my opinion.

Gregg, you wrote,

Theistic Rationalism vs. Deism and Christianity

Theistic rationalism was a hybrid belief system mixing elements of natural religion, Protestant Christianity, and rationalism – with rationalism as the decisive factor whenever conflict arose between the elements.


In a formal paper.

http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/8/1/1/2/pages281125/p281125-9.php

At this point, I have no idea what you're talking about. Your term doesn't hold much past Jefferson, for reasons given.

King of Ireland said...

" coached high school football at Oaks Christian. We won Sports Illustrated's national championship in 2006. Our quarterback was Jimmy Clausen; our running back was Marc Tyler (Wendell Tyler's son)."

Not bad. I moved this up to the main page but it will be old news by the time you have a chance to respond. I am sure you can email Jon and he will post it when you are ready.