John Adams’ Penultimate Statement of Rationalism
Jonathan Rowe on Aug 22nd 2008
This exists in his 1813 letter, written in the context of Britain’s repeal of a law that made it a crime to deny the Trinity, John Adams writes this to the militant anti-Trinitarian, Thomas Jefferson:
We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, that is, nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four….This revelation had made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one….Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and admitted to behold the divine glory, and there been told that one was three and three one, we might not have had the courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.
Adams says even if the doctrine of the Trinity were revealed to him with Moses on Mt. Sinai, he still wouldn’t believe it because man’s reason proves 1+1+1=3 not 1. That is the penultimate example of reason trumping revelation. [Do you think it's a little bit arrogant too?]
Adams also says the same theory — “the laws of Nature and Nature’s God” — which gives America its principles upon which it erected its government also reveals Nature’s God to be unitarian!!! I could offer quotes that demonstrate the unitarianism of Jefferson and Franklin as well. And they together made up a majority of the drafting board of the Declaration of Independence. We could say that the Declaration of Independence refutes Trinitarian Christianity. But there’s a problem isn’t there? There were many Trinitarian Christians in the nation who supported the Declaration of Independence, the Revolution and Constitution. And they didn’t understand Nature’s God this way.
The problem is easy avoided by being vague and refusing to identify the attributes of God when publicly invoking Him any more than 1) He exists, 2) He created us and grants us rights, and 3) will Intervene to do Justice. This is what American Civil Religion is all about.
Filed in The Belfry, The Bureau
Thanks for your reference to John Adams. I am just finishing the HBO minseries entitled “John Adams” and I have enjoyed it immensely. Maybe this should be obvious, as a semi-regular reader, but what is the “ultimate” statement of rationalism?
Mark
“Do you think it’s a little bit arrogant too?”
Perhaps, but definitely indicative of more 18C absolutist thinking. Apropos the issue of “ultimate truths”, it is debatable (and in fact, debated) whether “2+2=4″ is any more a gift of “nature’s god” than is the concept of the trinity (ie, whether math concepts are “discovered” or “created”).
Since both discovery and creation require human agency, I don’t consider that distinction to be of much interest. But if pressed, I would come down on the side of both math and the trinity being human constructs the “truth” of which should be judged by their usefulness in achieving purposes to which each is relevant.
Of course, given the religiosity and innumeracy of the US public, if we accept that view and determine relative utility via J. Scalia’s beloved majoritarianism, it might well be that Adams would be proved wrong - trintarianism might be assessed as having more “truthiness”.
More to the point of the post, this problem with Adams’s statement suggests yet another reason to reject “original intent” originalism. As brilliant as the “framers” (don’t want to peeve Mr. Heath) were, by today’s standards in many arenas they were relatively ignorant (necessarily - knowledge in those arenas being at the time partial or nonexistent), and it would seem appropriate to weight their opinions (if any) vis-a-vis issues in those arenas accordingly.
In particular, IMO whether they thought their inspiration came from Christian revelation, nature’s god via reason, or tea leaves should be of historical interest only. They wrote an explicitly secular constitution which presumably should be interpreted accordingly. (Not to suggest a preferred interpretive methodology, which I am incompetent to do.)
- Charles
“The problem is easy avoided by being vague and refusing to identify the attributes of God when publicly invoking Him any more than 1) He exists, 2) He created us and grants us rights, and 3) will Intervene to do Justice.”
No doubt I’m missing your actual intent here, but taken out of context I have serious problems with this statement.
As noted in my comment to your last post, IMO someone making a personal statement can invoke any concept of god they like. But if that person is speaking for the government, they shouldn’t suggest anything remotely like what you suggest. Many of us dispute all three assertions, and any suggestion that the government endorses them has precisely the adverse effects which motivated J. O’Connor in formulating the endorsement test. These effects, which abated for a couple of decades of the late 20C, have resurfaced big time for the last seven years, seven months, and two days (but then, who’s counting?).
And to preempt responses from any J. Scalia sock-puppets (probably not necessary in this forum, but I’m more used to reading the VC, where it definitely is), while I agree that as a general principle anyone acting as an individual has the right to offend any group for any reason, IMO no one speaking for the government has that right (at least vis-a-vis law-abiding citizens).
- Charles
Okay, so what’s the ultimate example? For that matter, (and how often do I get to use this word?) what’s the antepenultimate example?
[...] Reader Michael Heath sends along the following thoughtful comment to this post: [...]