Paine's Reasonable Revelation

Thomas Paine's lays down serious truth in "The Age of Reason." Honestly, I had a hard time not agreeing with almost every idea, phrase, and earth-shattering (at the time) idea he posits in this paper. On the whole, it makes sense. A whole lot of sense. But how much good does wielding his heavy hammer of reason, his "most formidable weapon against errors of any kind," (174) against the religious doctrines of the time accomplish for the general population of the world?

One quite contentious point Paine touches is that of revelation: "Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man" (176). Therefore revelation, from Paine's point of view, becomes (or can become) the basis for religious belief. It is a conversation, and because revelation is restricted to a personal conversation between God and man (or a devine monologue bestowed upon the mortal listener), "it is a revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other; and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it" (176). Now this is a novel idea - one that clearly goes against what almost any church would tell its followers. Paine emphasizes this point of 'revelation vs. hearsay' with biblical examples, one of which is Moses and the Israelites. When Moses descended Mount Sinai with the tablets containing the 10 Commandments, "[the Children of Israel] were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so […] The Commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them" (176-7). The Israelites had not heard the word of God, but through Moses. This alone is not cause to suspect Moses of lying, but Paine does show that there exists no logical reason to believe in divinity from the Israelite experience at Sinai. He continues that while the the 10 Commandments don't directly exude divinity, "they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having to recourse to supernatural intervention." Again, this is not evidence of Moses lying to the people of Israel, but a shrewd analysis of documents that most take for granted. He extrapoles from this and other information that all churches are institutions set up to enslave and make profit from mankind.

So why write this diatribe against all organized religion? Does Paine think that with a few strokes of his pen he can change the minds of the masses, that his few thousand words can unbrainwash the believers of the world? Instead, I think that Paine wishes simply to 1. provide his viewpoint on religion, God, and the basis of belief in the world, and 2. show that with a keen eye for logic and reason, anyone can free themselves from indoctrinated thought and think for themselves. He says "I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise. They have the same right to their belief as i have to mine" (175). With all of this hatred for organized religion, Paine still believes in God, but he calls his church his own mind, and he experiences God not in scripture than any man could have written, but "in the scripture called creation" (179). So take it or leave it (I'll take it), this is what he thinks.

Robinson Crusoe Does What He Wants

Daniel Defoe's 1719 novel Robinson Crusoe is one that echoes a major theme we have covered thus far this year- the balance of one’s faith and reason. Defoe writes in the preface that the novel is didactic in its purpose and it will teach the reader “the wisdom of Providence.” Crusoe is forced to fight for his life out at sea, and realizes that not even God can protect one from death but keeping faith is necessary to survival. Defoe shows the reader that repentance and loyalty to a higher power can offset some of the hardship and turmoil life can deal out. I found it interesting that Crusoe did not develop his spiritual side through traditional worship and practice, but rather through personal ambition and reason. He shows that one’s individual experiences are the avenue to finding God versus preachings or adapting another man’s beliefs. Crusoe begins his own quest by going against the wishes of his father and heading out to sea. I related the contrast of what is expected of him and what he individually desires to his religious evolution. I think he finds value in his personal beliefs unlike other philosophers at the time because of the first hand experience he builds his faith on. He does not simply take another man’s word as fact and is not afraid to disobey his father in order to find himself. I find this trait extremely admirable and worthy of emulation. I often question so many of the things I am told and expected to believe. Just because someone of authority or with expertise in a certain area claims that society should be one way doesn’t mean there are not alternatives to that supposed “right” way to live. People today turn to the media for perceived social norms and standards of living by which they can judge others who don’t seem to follow suit. If someone today rejects what is commonly believed by others they are sometimes shunned and not taken seriously. I find it hard to believe how so many people will do anything just because someone else is doing it. I ask myself, why do people look to celebrities and other public figures to gauge their quality of life? Defoe writes, “How little repining there would be among Mankind, at any Condition of Life, if People would rather compare their Condition with those that are worse, in order to be thankful, than be always comparing them with those which are better, to assist their Murmurings and Complainings." Crusoe serves as an example that not only is it okay to go against the grain, but perhaps those who are trailblazers achieve real personal happiness and satisfaction.

Adam Smith, Social Scientist

Adam Smith contends, in his The Impartial Spectator, that the only way to examine his own conduct in society is to remove himself entirely and "divide myself, as it were, into two persons, that I, the examiner and judge, represent a different character from that other I, the person whose conduct is examined into and judged of" (281). He claims that the only method to understand our appearance and actions is through the perceptions of others and that a certain anxiety arises in want of knowing. Furthermore that reason, "the inhabitant of the breast, the man within," (286) is the ultimate governance of actions but that this governance can advance only through interaction with others. "The conversation of a friend brings us to a better, that of a stranger to a still better temper" (287). Crafting this belief and formally explicating it seem to be bold and noble deeds Adam Smith accomplishes for his society. He speaks the unspoken rules of society and writes the unwritten law -- material that seems accessible if not somewhat obvious to a modern reader. Do you have to agree with everything he says? No; but you should, at the least, appreciate the unabashed honesty with which Smith presents his claims.

For example, on the topic of our personal beauty and deformity, specifically its self-perception, Smith says: A man who is tolerably handsome will allow you to laugh at any little irregularity in his person; but all such jokes are commonly unsupportable to one who is really deformed (282). At the risk of sounding crude, Smith provides a tangible everyday example to his theories. This allows and encourages application of his social theories. Additionally, it is good to hear an intellectual perspective on the social conventions of the time period. Often my perception of the culture of the time period is skewed because my perspective is limited to the scope of scholarly writings; however, this piece provides wonderful insight (especially in the examples and anecdotes) from an intellectual position. Smith has created inlet to the metaphysical exploration of social relationships.

In this essay, popular economic theorist Adam Smith takes great care to measure the implications of social interaction and perception in his The Impartial Spectator, as he would trade in a treatise on free market economy. He approaches the wholly different subject with the same scrutiny and explores the depths of these social phenomena. At the risk of sounding grandiose, I think that this is one of the most interesting and wonderful effects of the enlightenment. That intellectuals like Smith and Franklin desire so much to understand themselves and their place in the world, they create not only scholarly texts still held in regard today, but also inject an academic insight into the world they inhabited.

Une langue étrangère ne fait pas mon message meilleure

In his text on Franklin and the Enlightenment, Frank Kelleter dispels the common myth that the enlightenment marked a period of new, shared beliefs and theories. The Age of Reason, the other main term used to refer to the enlightenment, seems to be a more accurate name for the time, as Kelleter argues that the faculty of reason was what united enlightenment thinkers. He explains the critical, democratic, and constructive aspects of reason that still hold true today. Based on John Locke’s principle, that we have no certain knowledge, reason becomes critical to free the mind from doctrines that others impose as ‘the truth’, since we are not born with a truth. Though Kelleter does not mention tabula rasa, Locke’s idea that we are born without any inherent knowledge, it forms the basis of his argument against accepting the beliefs of others as valid due to commonality.

Enlightenment thinkers also believed it their responsibility to eliminate falsely established beliefs and even speak out against institutions that perpetuate them. Interestingly, having more skillsets, such as a foreign language or strong rhetoric, does not make the person more reasonable, but rather more powerful, lending credence to the old adage that knowledge is power. Ben Franklin warns however that knowledge could simply disguise nonsense to thwart reason. Thus, every man, regardless of economic/educational standing was capable of enlightened thought by using reason’ reason is democratic because it is accessible by anyone. This principle explains how Descartes’ theory of planetary motion, despite being false, makes him a good enlightenment thinker because he exercised sound reason within a limited set of knowledge that he could not have exceeded at the time.

Finally, this system of enlightened reason is constructive because if everyone proves beliefs for themselves and disproves unsound or unreasonable beliefs, what has become known as the scientific method would apply to all facets of life to create a better society as a whole. Unfortunately, we will never quite reach that utopia because unreasonable people shall always exist.