Andrea Jones

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most important documents in American history.  It was written by Thomas Jefferson.  Unlike most of the founders of the United States of America Jefferson was a deist.  This was also the period in history called the Enlightenment.  During this period reason was the main component in all things such as thought, invention, and politics.  Since the writer of the Declaration was influenced by the period he lived in and his beliefs there are influences of deism and Enlightenment concepts within this historical document.  These influences are easily seen in certain phrases and concepts in the Declaration.  These will be discussed by the author in the following paragraphs.  Jefferson was influenced by all three concepts of enlightenment.  He used the concepts of reason, nature, change and progress.  He also used deism.

According to A Short History of Western Civilization the concept of reason stated that, "All assumptions should be subjected to critical and empirical reasoning.  Traditional institutions or customs should not be accepted because they have been long-lasting but rather should be examined critically and held up to the standard of reason" (496).  In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson calls for the people to throw off the rule of the king they had followed their entire lives.  He did this because the king may have been in charge of them traditionally but the king had exceeded the boundaries of reason in the dealings with the American colonies.  The Declaration is in and of itself a call for people to think reasonably and see for themselves that King George was not a good king for them.  This was a critical part of the Declaration because if people had not listened to this part there would have been no rebellion, no revolution, and no America. 

Another concept of Enlightenment was the concept of nature.  "Nature is governed by a few simple and unchangeable laws...A move to nature is a move toward wholesome vigor and freedom" (Harrison, Sullivan, Sherman 469).  This was also an influence on the Declaration of Independence.  When Thomas Jefferson opens this document he states why it is necessary to separate from England.  He directly uses the words "...Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..." (The Declaration of Independence 1).  This is a direct reference to the concept of nature talked about in A short History of Western Civilization.  In short Thomas Jefferson is saying that the Laws of Nature are what entitle the colonies to dissolve the relationship with England. 

There is one last concept of enlightenment the influenced the Declaration of Independence.  Change and Progress was a major influence.  The Declaration of Independence changed the colonies future.  No longer would they be under British control.  They would be their own nation that could declare war, arrange trade agreements, and decide punishments.  The particular passage that influenced the Declaration of Independence is, "Change, when dictated by reason and when in line with nature, liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison, Sullivan, Sherman 469).  There is a specific passage in the Declaration of Independence.  Assuming the entire document is based on the concepts of enlightenment, specifically reason, the most similar passage to this concept would be in the fourth paragraph where it states, "That whenever and Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute a new Government" (The Declaration of Independence 1). 

The final influence on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence was deism.  In the Dictionary of Christianity in America states that "...deism is essentially a rationalistic religion, which assumes that all men naturally possess the ability to know the universe's Deity through reason, and that the creator of the universe was a rational architect" (1).  The Declaration of Independence's most famous lines is the most obvious form of deism in the document.  "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 the Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" (1).  In this passage the Deity is mentioned as the "Creator" (1).  It also references the fact that there are rights the Deity gave to all men, or what was part of the Deity's rational architecture.

Thomas Jefferson and The Declaration of Independence were influenced heavily by concepts of Enlightenment and deism.  This is evident by the numerous passages that directly relate to these topics.  This is no surprise considering the period of history Jefferson lived in and the religion he followed.  It is obvious to this author that these things played a large role in one of the most important documents in American history.

In the    Summa Contra Gentiles Thomas Aquinas discusses the relationship between reason and revelation.  The term for this is scholastic theology.  This is when a person combines reason and faith so it can be accepted by all people.  This was especially true in the time of Thomas Aquinas when philosophy was a prominent area of learning and Aristotle's works were being rediscovered.  In this particular example of scholastic theology Thomas Aquinas discusses two primary truths.  The first is the first condition: The ability of the mind to know the truth.  The second is the first principle: the principle of non-contradiction.  These two primary truths are used to make plain the fact that the natural order and the spiritual order could balance out, or in other words to show that there could be harmony between faith and reason.

Thomas Aquinas starts out Chapter 7 of Summa Contra Gentiles by discussing how the mind is able to know the truth.  This is the first condition of the three primary truths.  He uses this truth to illustrate that revelation cannot be without reason.  He states that the human brain knows certain things.  With just this knowledge a person cannot understand the Christian faith.  He says, "Now the afore mentioned truth of the Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason, never the less those things which are naturally instilled in human reason cannot be opposed to the truth" (333).  This is in reference to the knowledge humans have as part of the natural order.  It is not something that people have been given a revelation about.   There is also knowledge of the spiritual order.  That is knowledge that God gave to people when he made them.  This is what Thomas Aquinas says about the spiritual knowledge, "Now the knowledge of naturally known principles is instilled into us by God, since God Himself is the author of our nature" (333-334).  In this way it is easy to see that both the natural and spiritual nature of human knowledge can work together.  Since something cannot be true if it does not fit into the spiritual knowledge that was given to humans by God then it is not true.  However, just because the natural knowledge cannot understand does not mean it is false.  For example, though the natural knowledge of the human brain cannot understand fully how Jesus was true God and true man it is a truth that can be understood with the spiritual nature God gave people when He created them.  Since this is true if something is cannot be grasped as true through the spiritual nature it cannot be a Divine Truth from God.

                The next thing Thomas Aquinas talks about in the Summa Contra Gentiles is the first principle: The principle of non-contradiction.  If this principle is not held as truth than a human can learn nothing because the natural knowledge would be unable to grasp a fact without this truth.  The fact that the natural order is not able to understand something if it has a contrary argument is not something that God did.  Thomas Aquinas says, "Our intellect is stayed by contrary arguments, so that it cannot advance to the knowledge of truth" (334).  God also does not give revelations to humans if they are the opposite of the knowledge that is part of the natural order.  This is said in the text by Thomas Aquinas, "Now contrary opinions cannot be together in the same subject.  Therefore God does not instill into man any opinion or belief contrary to natural knowledge" (334).  Thomas Aquinas is talking about the fact that if something is said to fit into the spiritual knowledge but cannot fit into the natural knowledge it cannot be from God because God would not do something like that to the human race because they would get confused and would never reach the true knowledge.  He says that if, "...whatever arguments are alleged against the teaching of faith, they do not rightly proceed from the first self-evident principles instilled by nature" (334).  This is his way of saying that if the argument a person hears goes against the Old testament or the New Testament (he quotes a verse of the Bible in the previous paragraph) then it cannot possibly in the spiritual order or the natural order of things.

                Thomas Aquinas uses the first contradiction and the first principle to show that there could be harmony between faith and reason.  He did this because he lived in a time when philosophy was a science and Aristotle's works were being rediscovered.  The method he used was called scholastic theology because it combined reason and revelation.  Summa Contra Gentiles was the work of a genius which is evident through its concise arguments that show that faith and reason can be in harmony with one another.

Angelou's "startling truth" is the fact that humans are this world's most beautiful and best treasure, and when people finally come to this truth all wars, violence, and hatred will be over.   I agree with her based on three things.  The first and third could be called subjective truths and the last reason I agree with Maya Angelou is based on an absolute truth.

The first reason I agree with Angelou is because I believe that if people would take care of others before themselves then the world would be a better place.  If a person is on the street and hungry because they have nowhere to go then someone should help them either by taking them to a shelter or even taking them home, depending on a person's comfort level.  If more people put other's needs first then there would not be as many needy people in this country and we could start focusing on how to help other countries with their poverty problems as well.  My belief is a subjective truth because it is personally true for me and may not be true to anyone else.

The absolute truth behind my agreement with Maya Angelou is simple.  If everyone thought everyone else was great and a person was more valued then something like oil or land then there would be no more killing.  If there would be no more killing there would be no way to have a war.  Likewise no one would go hungry because the world would be motivated by the human existence instead of a desire to satiate themselves first.  I believe that this type of world is the kind that Angelou describes and this is absolutely true.

The third reason I agree with Angelou's truth is based on the truth that men were created in the image of God and the first man and woman were perfect.  One of the reasons they were so perfect was because they were in such a relationship where God was number one and then the other person came first.  Adam and Eve knew they were the best part of creation because God them dominion over all the creatures He had made.  In short what Maya Angelou writes is the perfection of the Garden of Eden and the world to come.  This may be called a subjective truth because it is not true for everyone, and it cannot be proven.  To me, however, this truth is absolute.

The reasons I have given for agreeing to Angelou's "startling truth" are subjective and absolute.  The first reason is because I believe in the value of people based on their own humanity.  The second is because God made us in His image and when we get back to that everything will be good again.  The third reason is because if people were valued more than things than there would be no violence, war, or hatred because a life would mean more than an object.

This sentence, like post-modernism, can mean anything.  It can mean that to a person outside of this class the sentence has no particular meaning except what is written.  However, to a person in Honors 101, this sentence and the way they interpret it can mean the difference between a good paper and a bad paper.  On the other hand there are people like the author of this paper who think this sentence and the whole post-modern movement mean nothing.  On short this sentence can mean anything, everything, and nothing. 

First of all this sentence could mean anything at all.  In a conversation it could mean that a person is trying to change an awkward subject or break the ice.  This sentence could mean that it is indeed a superfluous set of words that was thrown together in the spur of the moment.  This would be the definition of the sentence that would most relate to post-modernism.  Post-modernism seems to be a movement that was thrown together on the spur of the moment.  The original term was used for a movement within the artistic world, but the meaning now seems to have been discussed in a large group that could not come up with one definition and so compromised and put many of their ideas together and called it a definition. 

According to that definition everything falls under the category of post-modernism.  A piece of art can still be post-modern, but there is also a new dimension to the definition.  Now knowledge, reason and truth can be put under a post-modern microscope and be judged as good or bad according to the people it marginalizes.  Therefore, post-modernism can be the assumption that a friend's shirt looks pretty. A post-modernist would say that is marginalizing the people who may not looks as pretty in the shirt as a friend does and so the statement uttered would not be a truth.  There is no relative truth because while something may be true in relative to something else the truth could marginalize another and so the truth cannot be true at all.  In these terms post-modernism applies to absolutely everything everyone says or does because it may marginalize another person.

Finally the sentence could in fact mean nothing at all.  That is this author's opinion anyway.  This is how she feels about post-modernism too.  In her opinion the people who came up with post-modernism in the first place were merely trying to keep themselves from the truth.  Truth can be relative, subjective, objective, or absolute.  The way post-modernism tries to make these void is bothersome.  The truth cannot be denied simply because it is not advantageous to a group of people.  Going with that as a stipulation then saying that terrorism is bad would not be a truth according to post-modernism because it does not cast terrorist in a fair light.  Rather a post-modern person would have it said that terrorists are merely misguided in their sense of justice, or that terrorists are people who are being used because they are under educated and do not know any better.  While this may be true it does not mean that terrorism is not still bad.  That is why to this author post-modernism means nothing.  It has no place in her mind and she does not accept it as a truth, absolute or otherwise.

"This sentence serves no logical purpose" is a wonderful illustration of post-modernism because it can mean anything, everything and nothing.  It can mean anything to a person who just happens to read it over the shoulder of an honors student who is doing their paper.  It could mean everything to an honors student who is trying his or her best to relate the sentence to the meaning of post-modernism.  Lastly, it can mean nothing at all to anyone.  To further illustrate the point a picture that most resembles this author's definition of the relation between the sentence and post-modernism has been added.

Slowly the sun rises over a tired camp.  People are beginning to stir.  One by one they emerge from their tents.  There is sadness here.  A girl is looking, looking for someone.  She passes the other soldiers one by one.  He doesn't seem to be there, the one she is looking for.  Increasingly she becomes more desperate to find him.  She begins calling his name.  Suddenly he is standing in front of her.  She is so happy she begins to weep, but then she sees him clearly.  She is very sad because his arm is injured.  He tries to console her and tells her not to worry.  She begins rejoicing again that he is alive.  They run to the top of a hill together.

                Below the rise of the hill a person waits.  His intentions are sinister.  He watches the couple in the shadows.  The couple continues their reunion, unaware that people are watching them.  The man in the shadow becomes jealous of the soldier.  He shoots him an evil glare.  In his mind he is plotting the demise of the young man.  He wants the girl for his own.  He signals the go ahead for the enemy army to attack.

                The couple on the hill is now having a picnic.  The sun is higher in the sky, but clouds have begun to gather.  The clouds do not deter them, however because they are in love.  They vow that nothing will ever split them apart. 

                Then the enemy cavalry attacks the camp below.  The young man starts to go to the camp.  The girl wants him to stay.  He leaves her with a tearful good bye.  Every step he takes from her sends off warning bells in her heart.  Below the battle rages on fiercely.  There is a lull and she runs to where her brave soldier was fighting.  She finds him alive.  She is so happy.  The enemy attacks again.  The young soldier protects the girl from the enemy with all his strength.  At the end of the battle the two stand together, knowing the battle is won. They stare at the horizon, where the sun is setting.

The metaphor of "staring at the sun" is helpful in that theology is like staring at the sun because if a person does not use the right tools to look at the sun he or she can become blinded and see things that aren't there, like spots.  If a person does not consider period and circumstances they may misinterpret the Bible.  For instance, some denominations do not consider some of the stories told in the Old Testament to be real.  This goes against another part of the Bible that states that the Bible is the inspired words of God and therefore cannot be said to be fiction if the Bible says the story is real.  A prime example of this effect is the story of the prophet Jonah.  In this story Jonah is to go to Nineveh but he tries to run away from his mission and is swallowed by a fish as a result.  Some people who study theology say that the story is merely a tool to illustrate a point to the people of the time period.  They would say that there is no way there could ever be a fish that size, or that a man could not survive in the belly of a fish for three days.  They are forgetting that God is all powerful.  They are blinded by human limitations because they do not take all of scripture into account.  Instead they isolate the story and are blinded by the brilliance of the Lord's mighty power in the same way a normal person is blinded by spots when they look directly into the sun.  Yet people are still tempted to look at the sun.

                One problem with this metaphor might be that some people try to get around the damage the sun can do to their eyes by looking at it through a different medium that they make themselves.  When an eclipse comes a hole can be cut in the bottom of a cardboard box and the eclipse can be watched indirectly through the hole.  Some theologians try to look at scriptures this way.  They do not look directly at scripture.  They try to see the truth through a different method.  While this may be a good way to view and eclipse it is not a good way to look at scripture.  If scripture is looked at in a different medium there is always a chance that the person looking through the hole will forget that there is nothing there.  He or she starts relying on the hole so much they forget that the Son is not supposed to fit neatly in a hole made by a human.  The Son is unfathomable to the brains of men and so when He no longer fits in the hole people say that He could never have done a thinking like that, or it was just a story meant to symbolize the true meaning of what was really going on.

Another problem with the metaphor comes from page 67.  Wright states that God, "...is his own category, not part of a larger one."  The sun, however, is part of a large category of classification, namely stars.  There are trillions of stars in this solar system alone.  The sun happens to be the closest and brightest star for earth.  In a different galaxy they would not be able to see the sun as anything more than a star, if they could see it at all.  The God in the Bible however, is one of a kind.  There is no way He would not be seen in another galaxy because He is everywhere.  When the metaphor, "looking at the Sun" is used in relation to theology it may give others the wrong idea.  They might begin to believe that the God in scriptures is one in a trillion, like the sun is one of trillions of stars.  This is not the case however.  God is to be seen as the only one of His kind.  Without acknowledging this fact none of scripture would make sense.  If God was not the only all powerful being then there should be more texts like the Bible. 

Wright's work does not invite a person to study theology more deeply because it is not appealing for a broader audience.  Most of the people who would read Wright's book probably already study theology or are familiar with the Bible.  Another reason Simply Christian does not inspire readers to study theology is because there are very few Bible verses sited directly.  Without a story to build off of there is no reason to dig deeper.  Also if Wright does intend for his readers to delve deeper by reading the stories he mentions he should keep in mind that people today are about instant gratification and will not take the extra time to look at something if it is not given to them.  This is not to say Wright should have left out the stories from the Bible, it is only to point out that people would be more likely to read the verses if they were in the book because they would believe that they are saving time by not having to look them up.  The book is an interesting read and should be carefully studied, but there are other more effective methods to convince a person to study theology more deeply.  A person who is better at learning through listening would benefit more from a live discussion of theology more than from any book that they have to read.  There are also others who learn though doing, and when the verses from the Bible are so few and far between, there is not much to do when they are reading this book.  While other people may argue that Wright's book is the best inspiration to study theology more deeply, this author finds that she does not have the urge to leap for the nearest Bible and intricately study every word and its meaning.

This week I learned the value of making a schedule and keeping it. I had planned to work on the project a lot more and be almost finished tonight. I did not plan on feeling sick on Saturday, though. I had worked out a good schedule, but my health threw it off. In the end I only just got me presentation started instead of making a good dent in the work. Sometimes I work well under pressure, but other times I put too much pressure on myself and I push myself too far.

This week I got to know the intricate ways I can use my video camera. I have not figured out how to use all the features yet but I will keep working on it. I plan to make and edit a short film about my dogs. In this way I will learn how to use my camera, figure out how to put it onto a DVD and edit it, and get a short film of my puppies.

This week I had to switch my project because the organization I wanted to work with said they didn't have the staff to handle my project. When I explained that my purpose was to fix that very problem they politely told me to find another project or organization but I could still volunteer. I was disappointed that I did not get to work with dogs, but Lisa let me in on her project so now I get to work with Lisa. :)

This week I learned that communication is very important in any business of exchange. The less one person understands what they are to do the more confused the people he or she is trying to explain will become. I have also learned that my project is more complicated to explain than I originally thought. I also learned that the more I prepared for the actual explanation the better I felt, but when I started talking I became nervous and became flustered. In conclusion, I am not very good at talking to people I don't know and are older than me.