The Godless Constitution

This is a book by Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore that recently got a new updated edition (dealing with the Bush years). It deals with the US constitution, arguing that the founders intended to create a secular state, not a religious one. I think they are 100% correct.

Searching out for something to do over Thanksgiving weekend, I read the book and commented on it at my website - the initial post is here --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution.html or you can visit the website and scroll down - it should be near the top for a day or so anyway ( http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com )

And yeah, this is a little like blog-whoring.

Bryant

instead of discussing the intentions of people dead 200 years ago. This Constitution discussion reminds me of the interpretation of the Bible.

Incorporating the Declaration of Human rights and making it law would be a good idea too, since it's far more elaborated than the bill of rights.

Writing CLEARLY, in modern language how a free and democratic society should be ruled, would be far more interesting than speculative history.

Besides, the problem with this modern age is, we have so much to say, we just have to write it all down. Hence constitutions that should have been 600 words become 600 pages. Heck the new Iraqi constitution has a clause that states motherhood is a good thing - not to quibble with this assertion but I'm wondering if this is the appropriate venue for such statements.

I wonder if any new US constitution would reference the Super Bowl.......

Where do I sign?

We have the Constitution re-written now and it will become laden with the word of God. The Bible will become the ultimate source of law and truth. We will become an outright theocracy, and this nation will become hell on Earth.

Leave it as it is, please.

you put together a bunch of specialists having a broad consensus for their honesty and integrity. Then you discuss the draft in all instances of the nation, might take years. Then you vote on it (the final draft) and ask for binding majority (let say 75%) to ratify it with the highest participation as possible of the population. A constitution represents a basic set of rules that a whole nation agrees upon.

Keeping the same constitution 200 years with a few amendments is leaving it's meaning to judicial interpretation. Since in the US system the President appoints the interpreters for life (with few counter-powers), the result is basically anti-democratic.

Or less specific?

I'm surprised so many people resent the concept.

Why do you believe that?

Here's a good article from The Nation. The Founders were in general Deists, believing in the god of nature not the Christian God. If they mentioned god at all, it was usually in a public address, but not in their private letters that show their true feelings on religion.

In my opinion, we're lucky to have been founded in an era of rationality and enlightenment, since God would probably be all over a constitution written in this day.




http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050221/allen


Another good section, but the whole article is great.

without, say, a burning bush or direct intervention. Inspiring people who may not even necessarily believe in him.

And as I make clear, I think that seperation of Church and State is a good thing, a necessary thing, both for our national political life and for our national religious life.

I mean, let's assume an unproven god or gods exist - how would anyone know that the 'inspiration' came from such a being (unless, perhaps, said being physically manifested - oh, but then the person could still be hallucinating).

What kind of test could be done to confirm that this alleged god inspires anyone?

I wouldn't think there would be. Such a test, if it panned out, would naturally prove the existance of God, and I don't think God's existence could be proved.

Though they did in general believe in a singular god, but not a Trinity or a Christian God. They may have derived some inspiration from believing in this God, but they had a very negative view of religion overall. The God they believed in was not a knowable or personal god, but the god of nature, of the cosmos.

You still haven't explained why the Constitution might have been devinely inspired. It has been suggested that Thomas Paine may have written the rough draft of the Constitution that Jefferson is credited with. Paine was considered the penman for the revolution. He also wrote the Age of Reason and critiqued Christianity, for which he was branded an Atheist. But he really wasn't, he was just open about his views on religion and expressed openly his belief in the God of nature, not a Christian God, while the other Founders only did that in safe company.

But Jefferson, as were some of the other statesmen like Franklin or Adams, was inspired by the moral teachings of Jesus, they just thought they were corrupted by Christianity, by the priestcraft, to wield power over the people.

I believe that the light of God shines down on all of us, like the sun. All of us feel a touch touch of the divine now and again; whether we recognize it our not. I believe that Jefferson or Thomas Paine or anybody else who had a hand in writing the constitution was inspired by this light, again, whether they realized it or not.

That doesn't necessarily mean they were writing it thinking about God overmuch.

Which is more charitable in your opinion, beliving that God loves all his children and inspires them all? Or believing that only those who pray to God a specific way and have very specific religous opinions can feel his touch?

I don't see a conflict, but I can see how others might.

These human qualities do not have to be devinely inspired. Good morals can be learned from philosophy instead of religion, and that appears to be the source of most of their morals and ethics, though Jesus' teachings and philosophy were generally held in high regard. They also viewed him as a mortal.

From the same article:




Jefferson was a materialist, though he didn't see a contradiction in also believing in a supreme being. He was clearly inspired. As to what the source of his inspiration was, I'd say most of it came through his readings in philosophy and science, but he also produced a version of the Bible for his own use, later known as the Jefferson Bible, which was a secular version, mainly of Jesus' teachings he considered not to have been corrupted by the priestcraft.

The writings of great philosophers inspired the rationalists of that era. Locke, Hume, Voltaire, scientists like Newton, Bacon, ... Even the morals and philosophy of Jesus, who Jefferson described as the great reformer of the Jewish religion.

You still haven't made a case for the devine inspiration that these founders might have had in writing the Constitution. I would venture that it was more inspired to erect a wall between church and state to keep the influences of religion out of government.

Rather, it seems that Jefferson saw common law as the basis for the Constitution. He took special efforts to express that this country was not founded on Christianity, but in spite of it.







http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/qframe.htm

I may as well type anything I want because you will just respond with canned insights into the constitution being secular.

But, because I'm an incurable optimist, let me try once more.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you are an atheist? If you aren't than I apologize. But i'm going to assume you are. Imagine for a moment there was a God. If a God existed and if he wanted the best for people he might try to communicate with us.

In other words, individuals might reach out to God, but he also might reach out to human individuals. He might even choose to reach out to secular humanists or even atheists. People who are very religious might recognize such feelings as coming from God. Others might translate those "inspirations" into something the can understand better.

When I saw the constitution was divinely inspired, I do not mean that the founders read the bible and prayed and based it on religious principles. Rather I mean they basically did all the stuff that you have stated that they did, but they were guided by God without their necessarily being aware of it.

God, in my opinion, wanted America to be a land of religious Freedom; doing that required a secular state. So in my opinion God inspired the founders to create a secular state.

Now I can understand that this is not your belief; since, as I am assuming, you don't believe in God at all. Therefore all inspiration comes from ourselves, I would assume. So when I say the constitution is divinely inspired, you naturally assume that I mean that the founders tried to base it on religion. But that's not what I'm saying.

On what basis do you explain this statement? It seems rather naive. I could understand that the Founders wanted a secular government and a country that allowed religious freedom, but they believed that God was unknowable. So how do you know so much about what God wants?

What's wrong with religious freedom that God wouldn't want it? If you believe in a benevolent God and a God who takes a personal interest in people (which I do), why wouldn't he want it? Obviously if you don't believe in God or you believe in a Diest Watchmaker God, than it is naive to believe that God cares about his children.

Any time one says "Here's what the founders believed" you run afoul of the other founders who disagreed.

but the most influential ones were. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Hamilton, Paine, Ben Franklin, Ethan Allen, ...



http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html


But you still haven't explained why the founders might have been devinely inpired as they wrote the Constitution, let alone what basis you can justify the belief that God wanted a nation with religious freedom.

Rather, I would say that the enlightenment gained through their powers of reason is what inspired the Constitution. This period marked the low point in religiosity in our country. They were free thinkers, drawing inspiration from their own reason, not to say that they didn't derive any from their Deist God. But as you say, the Deist's God was not a personal God, could not be known.

My own theory as to how they were able to run this past the powerful clergy is that the founders were also responsible for running the war. The logistics and reason involved was outside the realm of the clergy, so the power that the founders had over the clergy was probably at an all time high. Now, you can see that no president is electable if he/she isn't a Christian. Non of these Deist founders would be electable. A bunch of infidels.

Over and over again, I have explained it.

But let's switch terms and try again.

I am using the term inspire in the phrase divinely inspired as a synonym for influence. I might inspire you to anger or frusteration. I might influence you to feel anger or frustration. That is the sense in which I am using the word.

God inspired the founders to create a secular state in my belief. Or, if you prefer, God influenced the founders to create a secular state. Thus I believe the creation of the constitution to have been partially inspired or partially influenced by God. Thus when I write about the constitution being divinely inspired, I mean that that the divine (i.e. God) inspired or influenced the creation of the Constitution.

Please also note that this inspiration or influence does not require those inspired or influenced to seek this influence.

Is that clearer?

but a whole lot of people feel quite strongly that God DOESN'T want religious freedom, too.

And if we base our religious freedom on what "God wants," then your opinion is just as legitimate as theirs.

The Founders didn't care what any gods wanted, they cared about preventing their new government from becoming like the tyrannical regimes of the past. One way to do that, they noted, was to separate church and state, and guarantee people the right to worship (or not) as they chose. They didn't justify it by saying "We think our god wants it this way," they justified it by pointing back to totalitarian societies and their firm partnerships with religion and religious sectarianism.

I'm not expecting everybody to believe my way; merely saying what I believe.

by introducing religious belief as a justification for a public policy, you automatically justify OPPOSING religious beliefs too. Neither you nor the fundie can show which of you is truly following your god.

But that's sort of the case if I acknowledge any religious belief at all, at least as we are talking about politics.

I mean, wouldn't it be equally offensive if I were to suggest the abolitionist movement was, in part, inspired by God?

Or, to put it another way, is Martin Luther King to blame for James Dobson?

And there we are. Who is right about God? There's absolutely no way to know. God isn't speaking for itself.

Your religious beliefs are fine for justifying your political beliefs... to yourself alone.

Possibly not. I was reviewing the book the Godless Constitution, and I wanted to lay out my personal biases right at the start. http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution.html

I think your advice would be for me to be completely silent about my religious beliefs; this is not a course of action I can take, any more than I would expect atheists to be silent about their opinions.

Bryant

the mind of god. We know Jefferson existed. We can read what he actually wrote, said and did. We can feel we know god and his thoughts, but not in any objective or demonstrative way.

I mean whether I admit I believe the constitution was divinely inspired or I keep that belief to my self, that belief is still going to influence my writing. Isn't it better to acknowledge such biases openly?

I said you shouldn't use religious beliefs to justify public policy.

Do you see a difference?

But I don't necessarily agree that I have (after all the constitution was a done deal long before I wrote about it), nor do I necessarily agree that religious feelings should never be a part of political discourse.

I do agree that if I am going to do it, I have to let the fundies do it to; that's kind of the price you pay for the right to express yourself.

You say Jesus wants you to feed the poor.

Fundie says Jesus wants him to kick the poor.

What will be governmental policy? Who's right? Can we ask God to settle the issue?

On edit: typo.

God's followers aren't consistent, but neither are those who base their opinions on reason. That's part of life.

Bryant

on edit - obviously I would hope that entering that discussion I would have more to say than "God said it so you gotta do it." You shouldn't assume that I support seperation of Church and State simply because I believe that's what God wants. That is a factor, but my reason tells me seperation of Church and State is important as well.

There is no "duking things out" when it comes to religion. You guys have been "duking it out" for 2 millenia now and all you have to show for it is a thousand more sects and cults than when you started.

Invariably, someone's going to be offended, or feel like they are sinning against Gawd by not getting abortion outlawed or whatever their pet issue is. Religion is played as the trump card over reason - if people don't like what the real statistics say (such as those for sex education, etc.), then they play that trump card and say "Sex is bad, cuz Jesus told me so!"

How do you begin to reason with that position?

But I don't know what the obvious solution is.

One problem is that we have a large movement of Religious Conservatives arguing that to be religious is to be conservative. As a Religious Liberal, I don't like that argument; and one way to counter it is to say "Hey I'm a liberal and I'm religious. There's no conflict between the two."

But I can see how that might, from your perspective, not be the best solution.

those beliefs are not sacred and if he chooses to talk about them he should expect a rebuttal.

And just because someone bases their support of a policy on their religious beliefs, they CANNOT be allowed to make the policy as "sacred" as the beliefs.

That's what has gotten us into the mess of the religious reich having so much power. They can automatically cloak themselves and their policies in religion, which is taboo to criticize.

Have you looked at my review of the Godless Constitution, or are you basing this discussion strictly on what I've said here?

This is just for curiousity purposes; I gather one person read the opening post where I laid out my biases, took offense at my admitting I had some, and that's what this entire discussion is built on.

Intro - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution.html

Chapter 1 Is this a Christian Nation? - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-1-is.html

Chapter 2 The Godless Constitution - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-2-godless.html

Chapter 3 Roger Williams and the Religious Argument for Church State Seperation - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-3-roger.html

Chapter 4 The English Roots of the Secular State - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-4-english.html

Chapter 5 The "Infidel" Thomas Jefferson - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-5-infidel.html

An aside on Jefferson - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-aside-on-mr.html

Chapter 6 American Baptists and the Jeffersonian Tradition - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-6.html

Chapter 7 Sunday Mail and the Christian Amendment - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-7-sunday.html

Chapter 8 Religious Politics and America's Moral Dilemma - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-8.html

Chapter 9 George W. Bush and the Wall of Seperation - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-chapter-9-george.html

Epilogue - http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2005/11/godless-constitution-final-thoughts.html

that your own personal religious justifications are perfectly fine. You think that the concept of the godless Constitution is itself divinely inspired. Great! I'm just trying to show the problems in putting those beliefs forward as a justification for public policy.

disagreement. You should expect them to voice or write about what they found at that point. Most people are not interested enough to spend a whole lot of time finding out your every view.

Atheists have several hot buttons one is this nonsense of mixing religion in with governance.

Interesting.

Because if you had read what I wrote, you would see that I argue against mixing religion and governance as well.

But, whatever.

a text lock with no way to change what was un functional. To think that any book or Governing document is sacred and inspired by a God would freeze it. Bad idea!!! However most fundies that I know want to rewrite the Constitution with God included which is denying current inspired notions.

Obviously part of what makes the constituion so wonderful is the amendment process.

I will admit, however, I am very leery of rewriting the constitution from Scratch. But that's just cause I think we'd probably screw it up.

be based on objective reality. Otherwise, we wind up debating public policy based on ethereal religious beliefs, where no one can prevail on a rational basis.

And as for the Constitution being "inspired" by God, great! However, just like the ID "debate", it leads us nowhere. God created the universe, the constitution, whatever. Great! But mostly, so what!?!?

people of faith would label it infallible like the Bible needs no change. Even though the Bible has been changed.

Like intelligent design having no reference to a specific god. It soon would have. There is also creeping religion.

I can only say what I believe.

See #46.

I was writing a review of a book on Church State Issues and wanted to lay my biases out at the forefront.

objective reality of the what the Constitutional framers did or didn't do? Or what public policy should be in dealing with public matters?

it is probably relevant. I don't usually bring my personal religion up at my blog which is largely about politics, because I don't like mixing the two (for the reasons you mention and some personal ones).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

US Constitution is Dev inly inspired, but not sacred to you? You might want to check the dictionary below on inspired. I suspect that this is an attempt to carve away at the intent for the Constitution to be secular in a step by step manner. Much like the "Under God" being inserted in the pledge of allegiance. The reason that you had to keep explaining that you favored a godless Constitution might lie here.

Your Bias
"Mormons believe, and I believe, that the Constitution was divinely inspired. What will be clear, however, is that I believe that the separation of Church and State, the Godless-ness that the authors reference, is, in a paradoxical way, divinely inspired."

inspire

inspire (in-spir?) verb
inspired, inspiring, inspires


verb, transitive

1. To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence.
2. To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion: hymns that inspire the congregation; an artist who was inspired by Impressionism.
3. a. To stimulate to action; motivate: a sales force that was inspired by the prospect of a bonus. b. To affect or touch: The falling leaves inspired her with sadness.
4. To draw forth; elicit or arouse: a teacher who inspired admiration and respect.
5. To be the cause or source of; bring about: an invention that inspired many imitations.
6. To draw in (air) by inhaling.
7. Archaic. a. To breathe on. b. To breathe life into.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., further reproduction and distribution restricted in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I would imagine I hold any number beliefs that you would rather I didn't. That said, I certainly don't like the insinuation that I must be some sort of secret fundementalist, trying to create a theocratic state.

It's unfortunately clear you are either unwilling or unable to intelligently debate this issue, prefering instead to simply repeat your points over and over again.

those who believe that it was inspired. Why not just accept that now and then a human or group of humans come up with something great. Pushing the notion that some non religious writing was inspired by a unprovable God is a bad way to go. This inspired by God notion also implies that there is a unprovable God in the first place. Yeah, they are different, but one leads to the other.

oil, parental honoring, torture, terror, bullying, and on and on. The haves want their treasures protected with strict absolute laws and copies of the Ten Commandments on display. Yeah I know that the Republicans are not big on obeying these commandments. Most have nots plus the generally disorganized Liberals (Democrats) believe that there are extenuating circumstances. Our country has opted for a system of laws that should look at both sides, which I support.

The Republicans who are controlled by the haves that through religion persuade many have not dupes. This include most followers that prefere the old testament of the Bible. Jesus offered a new deal (in the New Testament) as Jefferson noted, but the new deal is largely ignored because it has little to offer the haves (Republicans) who are the main stay of the church.

Putting a 2,000 year old book's view on morality in charge of any part of the legal government of the US is and was a bad idea. IMO neither the Bible or the Constitution were inspired by any God, but the men who wrote the Constitution were brilliant and I love them for it. I cannot say the same for the Bible.

The law must show functionality as the human race continues to evolve. Thus the Supreme Court has to evolve too.

Your atheism shows, and you certainly don't speak for the founding fathers, who were not atheists.

"The God they believed in was not a knowable or personal god, but the god of nature, of the cosmos."

Deism is much more theistic than that wording suggests, first of all, Deists in general spell God with a capital G.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Consider that in the Declaration of Independence, there are words like Creator, Divine Providence, and Nature's God (not nature's god).

I'm close to being a Deist, and I pray.

I didn't say they didn't, nor did I say that they had no divine inspiration, just that there is no evidence that the Constitution was divinely inspired.

But my point was that these folks were less apt to receive divine inspiration than through the reason that they valued so highly. The great writers, philosophers and scientists of the Age of Reason and Enlightment greatly inspired them, while religion was seen as an evil, at least organized religion. At most they were Unitarians or Deists, which were considered to be infidels by the Christian church.

I think being a Deist is a fine way to believe in a God. If I did believe in God, that's probably the way in which I would believe. I probably started out being a Deist of sorts, migrated to being Agnostic, and then to being Atheist. But I have some Pantheist tendencies, like the Deists, who appreciated nature and saw most divine inspiration coupled to nature as opposed to separate from nature like most revealed religion believes.

From your link:



But to say that the founders were divinely inspired in writing the Constitution is a bit of a reach. What evidence is there to make such a claim?

Regarding the Declaration of Independence, God is mentioned in the sense of the Deist's God of nature. But remember also the intent of the Declaration of Independence was to inflame the public, to rally them to the cause of fighting for independence. God gets used for political motivations throughout history. The founders had little use for organized religion, yet were not above paying attention to how it could be used to control the public. But they did believe in their God of nature, and this was before Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Post Darwin, it's a good guess that many would be Agnostics or even Atheists, but that's just my speculation. In this day and age none of these founders would be electable.


http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050221&s=allen

"Post Darwin, it's a good guess that many would be Agnostics or even Atheists, but that's just my speculation."

I doubt very much that they would believe that design in Nature is somehow explained away by Darwin's so-called explanation about how evolution works. Consider for example the scenario proposed - by evolutionists - for the evolution of photochemicals. What has been suggested is that different parts of the photochemicals had prior functions and events such as gene duplication occurred and they were assembled to form a photochemical. This sounds like it might have occurred, but it is an anti-Darwinian scenario. It takes statistical chance out of the picture, which Darwinism relies on. Another remarkable occurrence is that, for color vision, the photochemicals formed are not just sensitive to light, but to wavelengths of light in an extremely narrow bandwidth precisely at the sun's peak output of light. They are also resettable. Also, what good does having sensitivity to certain wavelengths of light without all the other structures involved in transmitting the signal, processing it, and responding to it?
In fact these preadaptations (called cooptions or exaptations by some evolutionists) have been proposed - by evolutionists - frequently.
Another mechanism of evolution that appears quite plausible is biosymbiosis, which is also non-Darwinian.
So the theory of evolution is not Darwin's, nor is it the neo-Darwinists'.

Or just saying that Darwin's theory doesn't explain everything about evolution? I think there are probably many defficiencies in the theory, but overall, it's pretty sound. There are apt to many other mechanisms that have got us to where we are now that don't fall neatly into his theory. but this is the argument that IDers like to make, that life couldn't evolve without some divine intervention.

But what I really meant by post Darwin was bringing them into the modern era, where in addition to Darwin's TOE, we have many new advances in science and ways of explaining the origins of life that were not available back then. So to believe in a divine creator, nature's god (and god was not usually capitalized, not by Jefferson and the other Deists anyway, to indicate the difference from the God of the revealed religions), was a pretty natural way of rationalizing the problem back then.

I guess relatively speaking, these "infidels" as they were called by the clergy, would probably be agnostics or have moved even further away from believing in divine creation. No way to prove that obviously. I'm sure they would be fascinated with M-Theory and all of the latest theories on the creation of the universe and evolution of life.

But what's more relevant is what they believed back then, and there is quite alot of documentation they left behind. Jefferson left 35,000 letters that are in historical archives. In his personal letters, you will find what he actually believed, which he never expressed openly so that the clergy could attack him. Yet they still knew he was an infidel and friendly to that "blackguard Paine". He, Franklin, and Paine were infidels, yet believed in a supreme being, a creator or first cause, but not a personal God. In this day and age, they would probably be declared unfit for office, atheists perhaps. ;)

"Jefferson based his belief in God on reason. In a letter to John Adams, Jefferson wrote that he believed in God because of the argument from design:

'"I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in it's parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's composition. . . it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is . . . a fabricator of all things.' "

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html

You claim "god was not usually capitalized, not by Jefferson and the other Deists anyway, to indicate the difference from the God of the revealed religions".

Do you have evidence that they usually did not use capitalization when referring to their god? It is true that Jefferson at least once wrote 'god', but that was in context. For example, in his letter to the Danbury Baptist association he wrote 'Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god', but later in that letter he wrote 'I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man'.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Some aspects of Darwinism are "pretty sound" but the evidence suggests that the part about design being explained away by natural selection acting on a succession of gradual 'random' mutations is not sound.

"There are apt to many other mechanisms"

I agree, I don't subscribe to theories that either God or Loki (the God of Chance) just simply and suddenly brings things into being with a magic wand. It is quite likely that other mechanisms are involved that go beyond our present comprehension.

In the United States Constitution:
"Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, ..."

They could have simply written 'in the year one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven' but instead included 'of our Lord'.

"I agree, I don't subscribe to theories that either God or Loki (the God of Chance) just simply and suddenly brings things into being with a magic wand. It is quite likely that other mechanisms are involved that go beyond our present comprehension."

I certainly agree that there is much that we don't know about evolution and the origins of the universe(s), but do you imply that these mechanisms that go beyond our comprehension require or suggest a divine presence that is responsible? That the universe and life within couldn't have evolved by itself?

That is probably what Jefferson and his deist friends thought as well, but they didn't have the benefit of modern day theories including the theory of evolution, with some of it's deficiencies as you indicate.

But my point was that back then, without the benefit of modern science, it was quite natural to believe in a sort of intelligent design, as Jefferson sort of hints at. But you can also appreciate that they drew their inspiration from nature, often refering to the god of nature.

This is not that much different than the pantheistic views of the American Indians. Later Thoreau also was inspired by nature and could be considered a pantheist in most ways. His cathedral was the forest, not the church. Going forward into modern day, many that have these same feelings of awe in nature or the cosmos consider themselves pantheists, agnostics, atheists, and deists of course. But there has been a gradual migration away from the need for a divine intervention as was thought back in the time of the early deists. I'm just speculating that a lot of them would no longer believe in a divine intervention or first casue in the era of modern science and cosmology.

As far as capitalizing God, maybe I went too far in that respect, but it often was dependent on who was being addressed, a confidant such as Adams, official addresses, or clergy, etc. Jefferson used both god and God certainly, but preferred god to refer to nature's god, not the Christian God. The Declaration of Independence as you show, the final version, has God and Nature capitalized, but that is not what Jefferson wrote in the draft. Surpised?








http://www.religiousrightwatch.com/2005/07/natures_god.html


Also, note this excerpt from a letter to John Adams. I think the Jefferson Memorial has only the part in bold quoted and with god in uppercase, and without the comma, to impart a very different meaning. So, when looking at historical letters, you really have to look at the originals, and or the drafts in the case of official documents, before the editors got hold of them. ;)




http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl134.htm




More from wikipedia on deism. Isn't wikipedia great?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

"... do you imply that these mechanisms that go beyond our comprehension require or suggest a divine presence that is responsible? That the universe and life within couldn't have evolved by itself?"

I don't see any reason to believe that the physical universe we exist in and biological life on our planet evolved by themselves or even could evolve by themselves. How can anything evolve from itself given that evolution implies change? How can something come from nothing?

Someone once tried to demonstrate to me how something can come from nothing by talking about starting with nulls sets, doing set unions, .... I simply pointed out to him that in that scenario you are not starting with nothing, but with sets and set operations. Besides, there wouldn't be a justification for generalizing from that scenario anyway.

It is still reasonable to believe in a sort of intelligent design given the evidence of many preadaptations.

To change the subject a bit, I think that the view that the universe is simple and random is self-contradicatory and false. It is obvious that the universe is complex and highly ordered. There appears to be some simple patterns involved, but why the leap to the claim that the universe is in general simple? How is this generalization justified especially when it goes against our own observation and common sense? Also, not everything is the same. Someone once claimed in another forum (not at DU) that the color of the universe is beige. Wrong. Averaging is a lossy operation, information is lost when averaging. Red and green are not beige. Harmful genetic changes are not beneficial genetic changes.
I read that many scientists used to think that the insides of cells are simple and random, and that this view was held on to for quite some time despite visual evidence to the contrary. This was one instance in which this viewpoint stood in the way of science. It is actually an anti-scientific viewpoint.
Just because some aspects of the universe appear random to us doesn't mean that randomness rules. That is another false generalization.
Randomness is a difficult subject. People used to think that cloud shapes are just random, but fractal/chaos theory showed patterns that were previously not perceived by us.
I think the 'by chance' claims have been taken way too far. People have even resorted to inventing unseen, unspecified, and most likely fictional variations, like all kinds of other beneficial genetic changes *that didn't occur* and other universes. We might as well say that the sun probably won't come up tomorrow because the laws of nature are just an illusion; we just happen to live in a universe where there seems to be general patterns. That doesn't sound very scientific, does it?

"I don't see any reason to believe that the physical universe we exist in and biological life on our planet evolved by themselves or even could evolve by themselves. How can anything evolve from itself given that evolution implies change? How can something come from nothing?"

These are several good questions, and I don't have the answers, but people haven been trying to find them for a long time. For one thing, there is order in chaos. A system can look random from one perspective, yet from another perspective or a different scale, order can be seen. Order on our planet is obvious in many of the organic and inorganic structures and life itself. Crystal structures, for example, represent a minimum configuration, a minimum of energy principle, which one can also notice in how water droplets form spherical shapes, or the meniscus that forms on wet surfaces. Much of life also follows this principle. Consider the Fibonacci series, which defines the "golden ratio". This is evident in many life forms such as pine cones, sunflowers, leaves, nautilus shells, flower petals, broccoli stems. It runs throughout nature.

Many other examples of order beyond the Finonacci series are found in nature. But does that imply an intelligent designer at work? That God is a mathematician? Or simply demonstrate certain physics principles at work?

I suppose we can't really talk about crystals such as the snowflakes crystal as evolving in that sense, but it has order due to its polar covalent bond molecular structure. Given the myriad of elements in the periodic table and momentum of a big bang, all things seem possible, at least to me. Probably since the first hydrogen and oxygen molecules were formed and cooled down, water molecules and ice crystals have been forming. Order out of chaos.

So you ask where does all this matter come from? From nothing? I guess that's the big question. M-Theory that provides a mathematics to allow for physics to transcend the singularity of the big bang, to allow multiverses, an 11-dimensional space. It's a pretty far out theory, but so is trying to conceive of a singularity from which the universe originated. Maybe in a hundred years we'll know, maybe even create a universe in a lab, but probably not while I'm alive.

"It is still reasonable to believe in a sort of intelligent design given the evidence of many preadaptations."

I didn't say that it wasn't, though the proposed divine aspects of creation have been steadily receding as science advances. Usually, the simplest explanation for things is the best (Occam's Razor). It just happened, with no outside help, at least probably not beyond a little help from a mathematican developing multiverses in the lab using M-theory eqations. :)

You find it remarkable that vision systems using photoreactive substances that happen to be receptive in a narrow band of sunlight. I look more to the fact that the sun's peak spectral output being centered in the range from 400nm to 700nm, the visible range. So why not evolve a vision system based on the use of chemical structures most responsive to that range?

"To change the subject a bit, I think that the view that the universe is simple and random is self-contradicatory and false. It is obvious that the universe is complex and highly ordered. There appears to be some simple patterns involved, but why the leap to the claim that the universe is in general simple? "

I didn't say the universe was simple or random. See my above comments. Order exists in chaos.

"I think the 'by chance' claims have been taken way too far. People have even resorted to inventing unseen, unspecified, and most likely fictional variations, like all kinds of other beneficial genetic changes *that didn't occur* and other universes. We might as well say that the sun probably won't come up tomorrow because the laws of nature are just an illusion; we just happen to live in a universe where there seems to be general patterns. That doesn't sound very scientific, does it?"

To be good science, any claims or theories must be supported by observations and data. Our observations of the earth, solar system, and beyond, have led us to develop theories and laws that explain their behavior. We no longer need believe in a god of thunder or lightening to explain these phenomena. But there are still mysteries and probably always will be.