October 2008 Archives

Without Enlightenment ideas, the Declaration of Independence and American Revolution may not have even happened. The Enlightenment encouraged reform and urged people to use their reason to solve problems and reach new conclusions (Harrison et al 470). That is precisely what American independence was founded on, and those ideas provided the impetus and courage to formally break from the powerful mother country. In truth, breaking away from Great Britain was a highly risky and bold move, and Thomas Jefferson realized that declaring independence needed to be done carefully but assertively. Thus, he crafted an argument using Enlightenment ideas as support for the decision to break away. The Enlightenment concepts of reason, change and progress, nature, and Deism in the Declaration of Independence demonstrate the credibility and thoughtfulness of the argument for independence, making the intent of the document sincere despite its audacity.  

            As a whole, the Declaration of Independence is firmly structured around a reason-based argument, which provides clarity and shows that serious thought went into its creation. Its structure has three parts: the beginning, which describes how government should be, the middle, a list of grievances against King George III, and the end, which concludes that independence is justified. Interestingly, its structure resembles a scientific experiment. The beginning is like a hypothesis, making a conjecture that the colonies have the right to independence. Then, the middle is like data, since it is all evidence that could help prove the hypothesis. Lastly, the end draws the conclusion that the evidence supports the hypothesis. Furthermore, the end eliminates sources of error in the decision to be independent in that it describes the countless measures to which the colonies had gone for support to no avail (Jefferson). This structure makes independence a provable, reasoned conclusion, reached through nothing other than empiricism. Because it is set up as proved, scientific fact, the case for independence is credible and hard to refute, despite the fact that it opposes history and tradition.

In fact, opposing tradition with reasoned argument was one of the hallmarks of Enlightenment thought (Harrison et al 469). This was because challenging traditional ideas could help bring about change and progress. Jefferson reflects the spirit of change in the Declaration of Independence, explaining that the change of independence is the only way to protect the peoples' happiness. Essentially, Jefferson holds that the purpose of government should be to ensure the rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and when a government does not uphold those rights, then it must be changed (Jefferson). Still, he says that change should not come from "light and transient Causes," but only when grievances have become too great to bear (Jefferson). By doing this, Jefferson negates any accusation that declaring independence was a hasty or irrational decision and instead gives it the credibility of prudence. He also describes change as not just a desire, but as a necessity. The first line of the Declaration calls independence for the colonies "necessary" and later calls it the "Right of the People" (Jefferson). Describing independence in these terms, where it is the only possibility for progress, further halts arguments against it. Overall, Jefferson defines government's purpose and says that if that purpose is not upheld, then people have the right to change the government to secure their personal freedoms.

That recurring idea of freedoms in the Declaration demonstrates the Enlightenment concept of perfection in natural human existence. Jefferson uses the natural ideal combined with Deism to give the argument for independence one more source of credibility, that of divine right. For Deists, God "revealed himself in nature and through reason" (Reid). In particular, human nature was considered good; societal structures made people bad. Thus, even though God was far away in the Deists' view, God was still beneficent and would show his goodness when things existed in their natural states. This view turns the attempt to create a more natural state of government into a God-ordained privilege. As expected, this view seen in the Declaration, where Jefferson says that the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them" to break political bands that do not serve and promote the natural existence of humanity (Jefferson). However, even though Jefferson invokes divine right to support the case for independence, he makes the intention of the new government very clear: to serve people, not God. Though people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," the point of government is not to recognize the Creator's goodness but rather to uphold and protect those rights for the people (Jefferson). Furthermore, though Jefferson and his compatriots rely on the "Protection of the divine Providence," they pledge not to the divine, but "pledge to each other" in a very human-centered way (Jefferson). Essentially, Jefferson uses God to give the argument for independence credibility by authority, but his Deist, naturalistic way of thinking allows him to turn the focus away from God and direct it instead toward human nature and goodness.

Because declaring independence was such a bold thing to do, Jefferson provided plenty of reasons why he and the rest of the Founding Fathers were doing so. Those reasons reflected their Enlightenment views, since they focused on concepts such as reason, change and progress, nature, and Deism. Of course, no matter how carefully crafted or tight the arguments of the Declaration were, it still brought about a war. When people today look back on Jefferson's words, though, they can still see evidence of the hope that reason and knowledge would be the true purveyors of change, not military action. The ideas of independence took just as much courage to declare as to fight for. Truly, the Founding Fathers lived out the dare to know.

Works Cited

Harrison, J., Sullivan, R., and Sherman, D. A Short History of Western Civilization, 6^th ed. New

            York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985.

Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence. Retrieved 10/28/08 from

http://webct.csp.edu/SCRIPT/HON11001f08/scripts/serve_home

Reid, Daniel G, ed. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Dowers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,

 1990.

Today, many people think that science and religion are irreconcilable. In that worldview, if people believe in God and in the truth of the Bible, then they must therefore deny things like the scientific age of the earth or evolutionary theory. On the other hand, if people believe the findings of science, then they must come to the conclusion that God does not exist or is at least not active in the world. These two types of people are extremes. Still, even Christians who are open to science may encounter difficulties in an attempt to reconcile it with their beliefs. Luckily, this issue has existed for a long time, and people can look to past thinkers who have already delved into the issue. One such thinker was Thomas Aquinas, a theologian of the 13^th century. The issue of his time was the reconciliation of pagan Aristotle's reason and Christian revelation. Instead of saying that Christian truths cancelled out Aristotle's human reason, he held that the two went hand in hand. In chapter VII of his work Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas uses the first principle of non-contradiction and the first condition of the ability of the mind to know truth to deduce that reason and revelation both are, and in fact must be valid.

                Aquinas begins his argument in chapter VII by establishing that the truths of reason and the truths of revelation are indeed true. In the former chapters, Aquinas had already established that faith from revelation is true. Also, what the human mind knows through reason must be true, since according to the first condition, the mind has the capability to grasp truth. If the mind reasoned things that were not true, then the first condition would not hold. Even for those who doubt the truth of human reason and instead believe in the authority of God, Aquinas has an answer. Because God created the human mind, he also gave it the capability to reason and know truth. The first condition supports that idea. This means that human reason is a subset of divine knowledge, which could not possibly err. Furthermore, if humans could not reason truth, then God would have created faulty minds, which no one believing in the authority of God would accept. Hence, what the mind figures out from reason must be true, and the faith God gives people though revelation also must be true. With this use of primary truths in an argument, Aquinas corners his opponents into agreeing with his position. No one in Aquinas' time would doubt any of the primary truths, so Aquinas uses the solid foundation of the primary truths to create an undeniable argument that the mind's reasoning and faith are both true.

                Since Aquinas establishes that both reason and faith are true and that they both come from God, he can use the first principle of non-contradiction. If both are true, then they cannot possibly contradict according to the first principle. Therefore, none of the truths that come from faith can possibly contradict the truths that come from reason. Instead, Aquinas puts reason and faith in a hierarchy, saying that humans can reason truth, but faith fills in even more truth that they could not possibly reach solely through reason. This defines the validity of each type of truth. People can use reason to learn about the natural world, but when they attempt to use reason to learn about God, their minds fall short. The mind falls short not because it cannot understand truth, but because it cannot use reason to grasp or deduce things about God. When this happens, then revelation provides truths of faith. Accordingly, the two types of truth do not contradict one another, but work together in harmony.

                To end his argument, Aquinas states that any arguments against the truths of faith are invalid. This is because an argument undermining faith would go against the primary truths: it would be saying that two truths contradict, when that cannot be. In conclusion, Aquinas gives people the right and the duty to embrace both reason and faith truths. For many people today, Aquinas' argument can be of comfort. Instead of having to choose one truth and deny the evidence present for the other, people can see that both types of truth come from God. Of course, for the extreme people described previously, Aquinas' arguments may be seen as a compromise of religion or a weakening of science. Neither of those was in Aquinas' intentions. Instead, Aquinas wanted to harmonize two disciplines that each held evidence of their truth, and he did so using incontrovertible primary truths. Overall, his argument is one that provides an intelligent and broad view of the world and the supernatural.

Directed Writing 3

            The poem "A Brave and Startling Truth" by Maya Angelou focuses on exploring the possibility and necessity of peace on earth. Thus, the truth indicated in the title is the idea that humanity possesses the ability to live peacefully and make the world a good place for everyone to live. That truth is "brave" because it boldly goes against previous human history, filled with war and conflict. In this way, the truth does not correspond with reality and may therefore be considered false. It is also "startling" because many people easily give up on the idea that peace can be achieved; they say that human nature makes people selfish, making conflict impossible to cure. Human history would demonstrate that peace does not work out, making it pragmatically untrue to state that it could. Essentially, the truth about which Angelou writes is one that can be disproven using different theories or tests of truth.

            Because I am an idealist, I am inclined to agree with Angelou's audacious declaration of truth. I have always believed in the ability for humanity to improve itself, which perhaps indicates that I am still a modernist living in a postmodern world. When I hear about people working for peace and to end conflict, I feel hopeful for the fate of humanity. Still, I always have to recognize how fleeting peace can be in this world--peace consistently disappears where it once existed--which is why I cannot put my faith in the capabilities of humanity.

Christian faith gives me a much more solid reason to believe that peace will one day come to this earth. I believe that Christ will come again to restore the earth and make it God's domain, as N.T. Wright described in Simply Christian. Angelou does not flat out state that the second coming of Christ will be the reason for peace; in fact, she seems to say that humanity in itself has the power to make peace with phrases like "we are the possible." Still, much of her language hints at a religious or even Christian subtext. Near the beginning of the poem, she says that "all signs tell us" about the inevitable coming of peace and truth to the world. This describes a truth of revelation. Then, she speaks of how we were created on this earth, but makes the distinction that we are "neither devils nor divines." Rather, this language seems to describe how humanity is full of sin, but that even though we are not perfect, God still loves and cares for us. Furthermore, she scorns "sanctimonious piety," which might create a tone of hostility against religion, but rather it could say that the religious traditions of the world now have become hypocritical and that people have lost sight of the true nature of God. I think she is saying that when Christ comes again, then everyone will be in God's domain, and people will know God without having to appear pious.

            Most of all, Angelou places humanity above all else on the earth, and I think this shows how we were created and favored by God. Because of this favor and the promise God made through Jesus, the "brave and startling truth" will in fact arrive.