Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
An Ambitious Fiction: We Hold These Truths …
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.
More beautiful words were never written. But if the gentlemen who penned our Declaration of Independence intended that “We” to refer to the nascent America as a whole, rather than to themselves only, then it’s largely fiction.
I am agnostic and lacking in faith but, paradoxically, the only portion of that glorious sentence above that rings true to me is the “Creator” part. Because I do believe that, throughout human history, men have believed the reality of a creator to be self-evident. I think evolution has wired us that way, to seek an explanation for our existence and our purpose and, if necessary, to invent one.
But is man’s equality self-evident? Does anything about human history teach us that something in nature or nature’s God suggests to men that every other man is in any essential sense his equal? I don’t think so. I believe we are created equal, but I don’t believe that is self-evident.
I’m not talking here about the superficial inequalities of physiology and circumstance but rather of the equality the founders meant: equality of value and worth and, yes, of rights as a fellow human being. These are the aspects of equality that make our rights intrinsic and fundamental to, and inseverable from, each of us: that makes them, in a word, unalienable. That is the equality that has, for most of our history, been far from self-evident — that in fact is still not embraced by much of the world’s population.
This post was inspired by Stina’s post “Where Rights Originate,” which asks a deep, important, and ultimately unresolvable question. She inspired an interesting discussion, and you should go read it.
My purpose here is much more modest and practical. I want to make the simple point that, wherever rights come from, and regardless of what we believe about where rights come from, nothing that we cherish about our rights or our equality is really self-evident. Rather, it must be taught, and it must be taught early: The torch of freedom has to be passed on to each child long before he or she becomes an adult.
If we are going to restore our nation, we will have to reclaim our children. Home school, private schools, and church schools offer an alternative to public schools and their increasingly sinister and tyrannical administrations. But confronting the public schools is essential, which brings us back to the need to assert our right to free speech and free assembly.
The current efforts of the Brandon administration to silence parents, to caricature them as terrorists for challenging the authority of school boards, suggests that the public education establishment understands how unpopular its policies are and how vulnerable those policies are to pushback from outraged parents.
Push back. Keep pushing back. And make sure that your children are learning those truths that, unfortunately, aren’t really self-evident: that we’re all created equal, and that our rights are integral and essential — despite whatever they may be learning in school.
Published in Culture
Is that a definition of self-evidence from a dictionary?
Isn’t this all highly tangential?
Henry should not require faith to be capable of following the logic of a paradigm. He does not need to agree with the premises of the system to be capable of following the logic that proceeds from those presumptions.
This is Philosophy 101 stuff. If you want to understand what the founders meant by “self-evident”, then you must attempt to understand it through their presumptions, whether you believe in them or not.
If you think their conclusions are wrong or wish to get to their conclusions through different presumptions, that is an entirely different exercise.
I think he recognized it as a huge detour early on page 2, in fact.
(As a general rule, I like the Ricochet conversational detours.)
This is where I have a different view, perhaps from my prior life as a mathematician.
As an example, in math, there are five axioms to Euclidean geometry. The fifth axiom, as stated by Euclid, was pretty complicated, but turned out to be equivalent to: “For any given point not on a given line, there is exactly one line through the point that does not meet the given line.”
Is this axiom true?
It turns out, no, not necessarily. There are non-Euclidean geometries. If you assume Euclid’s fifth axiom, you get one type of geometry, and if you do not, you get a different type of geometry. It turns out that elliptic geometry and hyperbolic geometry can be described mathematically (spherical geometry is a special case of elliptic geometry). Both have their uses.
As an example, if you’re trying to survey land, you cannot use Euclidean geometry. You have to use spherical geometry, because the surface of the Earth is (close to) a sphere.
For other problems, Euclidean geometry is useful.
Hyperbolic geometry is fun and mind bending, but the axiom is true for Euclidean/planar geometry.
Ok, so some axioms aren’t simply facts. Maybe some are wrong. And maybe some are facts that only describe part of the reality, or one aspect of reality. Maybe, like more or less everything else we know, they’re models that are partially correct and largely useful.
That’s how knowledge normally works, isn’t it?
First of all, I must take the requisite cuts at Mr. Jefferson and his poem:
Continued…
Now, off on a tangent:
Maybe we can back up a year to July 1775 and Jefferson’s hand in a little thing called “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America, Now Met in Congress at Philadelphia, Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms.” If we examine the introductory sentences in it:
Pretty much a wordier and less poetic version of the same stanza. I guess he shortened that snark about showing some evidence of their Divine birthright of power and decided to leave off the less important rationales of “reverence for principles of humanity and the dictates of common sense.” I am beginning to wonder if you look too deep with “…the equality the founders meant: equality of value and worth and, yes, of rights as a fellow human being” and the real meaning is much more basic.
Next, if I find the time and energy, I will back up another five months and hopefully extract similar thinking on the justification from Mr. Hamilton’s “The Farmer Refuted.” (That one has some real fire in it.)
So what were they thinking?
The term first appeared in 1632 (per the OED) and seems to have been used a fair amount by biblical scholars and heavy thinkers. No surprise. This quote is from SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY (1871) by CHARLES HODGE, D. D., professor in the theological seminary, Princeton, New Jersey, and only included here as reference to how the term was used in centuries past:
A fancy way of saying a truth anyone would recognize. I think, could be wrong, that one could sit down with any child old enough to understand the basic concepts of truth, being alive, being allowed to do things for themselves and being happy, and I think they would agree that these things are true. I think they could also agree that rules are necessary (being governed by consent), that rules should be fair, and if not there should be a way to fix them, and I think they would agree with the other truths, as long as you discussed them in basic terms.
I believe children have to be taught to hate. I think the natural state of mankind is to love and be loved and it’s the adults who maybe need to learn from the children. Jesus was keen on this idea. I also think we try to make things too complicated and this is something else the little ones can teach us about.
I’m satisfied these truths are self-evident.
Not from the children I knew and still know (including my two grandchildren). The natural state of a child is “If you have it, I want it.”
Yeah. Okay.
If someone wants to say that the Bible is completely correct because God dictates it, I’ll accept that as an adequate answer for any believer. For a non-believer, the fact that there are many translations that evolve over time and differ in details, and that they’re based on numerous fragmentary texts that themselves differ all the way back to antiquity, suggests that we probably don’t really have any one decisive perfect version of the Bible available.
I don’t think that, for a believer, “Biblical inerrancy” should be top of the list, but then I have a distinctly orthodox protestant sense of what should be top of the list — acceptance of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. And I have a distinctly heterodox view of Trinitarianism, Christology, hell doctrine, and a few other things.
Of course, as a non-believer, my opinions are shaped only by my reading of scripture.
But it wasn’t dictated.
(Well, maybe a few parts. A pretty small percentage.)
Way to miss the point. Why don’t you answer my question?
By “dictated,” I mean ordained by God. Dictated as in issued as a command. If a believer believes that God says the Bible is inerrant, then it makes sense to for him to believe that the Bible is inerrant. If a believer believes that the Bible says that God says that the Bible is inerrant, and the believer isn’t particularly sensitive to wildly circular reasoning, then believing that the Bible is inerrant still makes sense — to the believer. I’m good with all that.
I needn’t answer your questions, SA. You’re not my college professor. I’m simply making an observation that lots of sensible people will find reasonably plausible: there are many varying translations of many varying ancient fragments, and disagreements about what they all mean. There are many Christian denominations springing from that, all with slightly different doctrines, some with very divergent doctrines. What “the Bible is inerrant” actually means is ambiguous, given that “the Bible” is itself a rather ambiguous term.
But, as I’ve said elsewhere (for example, in my criticism of Stephen Meyer’s pseudo-scientific apologetics), I think people of faith should avoid trying to make their faith make sense by the rules of the natural world. I’d add, in this context, that they shouldn’t try to make their faith make sense by the normal rules of language and logic, either — at least if they’re Trinitarians. And I mean that: people of faith should, in my opinion, hold faith paramount, and give up no ground to anyone who makes rational or scientific or logical arguments against their faith.
I won’t argue that people of faith should reject the idea that the Bible is inerrant, if that’s what they think God tells them. Personally, I think it’s a heavy lift, doctrinally speaking, but then I think that about lots of points of doctrine.
I still think it odd that it would be the primary point of doctrine. But, again, I did most of my Bible studying while in the mainstream Protestant traditions, where accepting Jesus as Savior was the big thing.
But that’s not what “dictated” means. I don’t even know what you mean by “issued as a command.”
You shouldn’t be good with circular reasoning.
Indeed I’m not. But if you’re not going to answer this question, why not stop this farce sooner and just say at the outset that you refuse to converse with me?
You gave me your view, and I responded, and you’re ignoring my response.
That is more than plausible. That is a set of well-established facts.
And that is ignorance. “The Bible” is not an ambiguous term, inerrancy is only said to be ambiguous by those who have never studied the doctrine, and neither of those things follows from the facts you cite.
Faith transcends reason. It doesn’t go against it, and if it does then it’s rubbish and should plainly be rejected. But it certainly isn’t contained within reason. And there’s nothing wrong with finding evidence for it if it can be found.
I already said it’s not a primary point of doctrine. Why do you keep bringing that up?
I think it is, but I’ll be happy to await your unambiguous definition. Incidentally, I’ve both studied and taught it — the Bible — for what that’s worth.
Because someone else made that assertion. For goodness sake, SA, your word is neither the last nor the most authoritative; there are other people in this conversation.
Once again, it’s the Tanakh plus the New Testament.
Or did you mean an unambiguous definition of inerrancy?
I also gave you that in # 57.
And, for goodness’ sake, you were talking to me the last two times you brought it up.
And who around here said it’s “the primary point of doctrine”? I said it would probably be the fifth-most important doctrine, and Quietpi # 18 only says it’s “absolutely essential,” which could place it anywhere in the top ten most important essential doctrines.
Those are names for collections of texts that differ in both original material and translation.
If two particular texts conflict, is each “inerrant?” How does that work?
Fair enough. The claim was made that it is “the absolutely essential doctrine.” Since the writer said “the” rather than “an,” I took it to be a superlative. It’s perfectly fair that the writer might not have intended that. Perhaps the writer meant merely that it is one of multiple the essential points of doctrine.
I still find that a stretch, but I’ll concede the point that the writer might have meant something other than the most important point of doctrine.
Yes. So?
Have you looked at my response on this matter in # 57?
Obviously not. Show me a real conflict in the texts, and, of course, I will have to change my theology.
Good grief. “The” was an article for “doctrine,” and “absolutely essential” was an adjectival phrase. It doesn’t mean there’s only one absolutely essential doctrine any more than “the hot cup of tea on my desk” means there’s only one cup of tea. Put something superlative in the adjectival phrase–“most absolutely essential doctrine,” and maybe you’ll have something.
I think I’ll respectfully disagree, though I would agree the natural state doesn’t take long picking up bad habits. I’m afraid this may be more the root cause of a lot of what ails us. It occurs to me that very few people learn from their children anymore. Someone mentioned this in another post, how having kids changes the way you look at things. A topic for another post maybe.
If you’ll carefully read the bolded part above, you will see that I acknowledged that point. You are being a pompous bully.
I don’t mind. I don’t respect pomposity and I’m not cowed by it. But you are well regarded here, and I think it makes you look petty when you do that.
What does “real conflict” mean? I can find two texts that conflict. What makes the conflict “real” to you?
You are mistaken on what was said as well as on your conclusions about me personally.
My point was that the words literally mean no more than such-and-such. Your bolded remark was quite a different claim–merely that they might not have been intended to mean something else.
A contradiction in the meaning of the two texts.
And what, specifically, do you mean by “texts?” Would you consider two different translations of the Gospel of John, for example, to be two different texts? If not, what would qualify two texts as being appropriate for comparison for potential contradiction?
No, of course not. You should read # 57.
John is one text, with multiple translations.
Matthew and John are two texts. John and Luke are two texts. Galatians and James are two texts.
(Two contradicting chapters of John would be fine for demonstrating a contradiction as well.)
I think Satan is the good guy in Genesis. But that’s just me.
And to some extent, Milton.
It’s probably not just you, but it ain’t Milton.
Mammom is awesome in Milton. Why Milton write an entire poem about how Satan was awesome?
He didn’t. He wrote an entire poem about the Gospel.
But if you’re asking why Satan has awesome aspects, it’s the same reason he has them in those passages in the Old Testament about him.
The name “Satan” does not appear in Genesis. We only find out that the serpent is [controlled by, or is] Satan from the Revelation 12:9. “That serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world.”
But I assume you mean that eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was a good thing. Is that right? This is much misunderstood. It is not the tree of knowledge in the intellectual sense. It is referring to experiental knowledge as in “he knows great pain”. Having knowledge of good and evil means that we now experience pain as well as pleasure, calamity as well as prosperity.
Henry, you have no idea about the powers you’re dealing with. Before I was saved I didn’t either. As a dedicated atheist one of my life mottos was from Milton, “It’s better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” But the reality of evil, and its prevalence throughout history convinced me that what the Bible teaches about everything is truth. If pure evil exits (and it does), then there must be an opposite – pure good. Light cannot exist unless there is such a thing as dark. Misery/Expectancy, Fear/Bravery – everything has its opposite and so too does evil.
I highly encourage you to explore the source of ultimate good, because the supernatural forces of evil are way more powerful than most of us can comprehend, and making claims like you’ve made here opens the door to demons like Fear, Arrogance, Debauchery, and even Murder. They will have their way in absence of a more powerful Spirit. It’s a toll I pray you and your family will be protected from.
You take it as a matter of faith that the original texts were perfect and without error. You aren’t arguing that any *existing* Bible — that is, any existing book or translation — is similarly perfect and inerrant.
That’s good. As with everything to do with religious faith, I think it is best to never claim that a point of faith is objectively testable. Using a definition of the Bible as an abstract ideal text that may or may not exist in physical reality is one way to make the claim untestable, because it allows you to ignore any errors or contradictions found in existing texts as errors of transcription and translation. And that’s perfectly sensible to me: while I don’t believe there ever was an inerrant text, I do believe that there were errors of transcription and translation.
When I said that “the Bible” is somewhat ambiguous, what I meant is that most people say things like “I read the Bible” or “I believe what it says in the Bible” and, when they say those things, are referring to the words in one or another actual printed translation. They aren’t referring to a believed in but perhaps no longer existing perfect original physical text that may have been misinterpreted and mistranslated down through the ages until it is presented as the King James Bible or the NIV or NASB, or Catholic Bible or any of dozens of others, each with small differences and the occasional contradiction.
That is the ambiguity to which I was referring. What you mean by “the Bible” isn’t what most people mean.