As I write this it is just beginning to be the 4th of July in the United States now, though its been 4th July for some time here in New Zealand.
The 4th of July is, of course, Independence Day. Typically in New Zealand, those members of the secular blogosphere, who consider themselves to be classical liberals, have an annual rant on the 4th of July about the Declaration of Independence, praising the philosophy expounded in this document.
Not PC’s Peter Cresswell, for example, states in Happy July 4th! that “with the exception of just a few words, the words could hardly be bettered today;” the declaration is, “A wonderful, wonderful anthem to freedom that rings down through the years.” He bemoans, “if only the real meaning of those words could be heard and understood.”
A few years ago Kiwiblog’s David Farrar made similar claims, he stated he would often “marvel at those marvelous words, written in the heat of oppression…Marvelous, absolutely marvelous.”
I agree. I would simply point out to my secular, liberal, country-men what the words in this document actually say, and some of the philosophical ideas they expound.
First, the declaration refers to God; it does so four times. Maverick Philosopher has an excellent analysis of the theological content;
In the initial paragraph, we find the phrase “…Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God….” This phrase rules out pantheism: God is distinct from Nature. In the second paragraph, there is the phrase, “…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….” Putting these two references together, we may infer that the God being referred to is not merely a deistic initiator of the temporally first segment of the physical universe, but a being involved in the creation of the human race. For if God endowed human beings with rights, this endowment had to occur at the time of the creation of human beings, which of course occurred later than the beginning of the physical universe. In traditional jargon, God is a creator continuans rather than a mere creator originans. He is not a mere cosmic starter-upper, but a being who is continuously involved in maintaining the universe in existence.
…
The other two references are in the final paragraph. There we find the phrase, “…Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions….” near the beginning of the paragraph, and near the end, “…a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence….” Now if God is the Supreme Judge, then he is more than a mere metaphysical cause responsible for the universe’s beginning to exist; he is also the supreme moral arbiter. And since he endows human beings with rights, as opposed to being merely a judge of rights antecedently possessed, then it seems we may infer that God is the source of moral distinctions (as opposed to a mere judge of them).
The reference to divine providence is further evidence that the conception of God in the Declaration is non-deistic. For if God provides and protects, then God has an ongoing involvement with the world and its inhabitants such as would be ruled out by a deistic view. It should also be obvious that talk of providence (from the Latin, pro-videre) implies divine foreknowledge which implies intelligence and perhaps omniscience on the part of the deity. The God of the Declaration is not a blind metaphysical cause posited to explain why the universe began to exist, but a being with such attributes as moral goodness and intelligence…. So if by ‘deism’ is meant the doctrine that God is a mere metaphysical cause of the universe’s beginning to exist who is thereafter uninvolved in its continuing to exist, then the God of the Declaration is non-deistic.
Second, the declaration claims that belief in a creator is self-evident; that is, it is a properly basic belief, which is rationally acceptable to hold in the absence of any proof.
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 Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
Third, the declaration makes political pronouncements about public policy on the basis of these theological claims and expects these pronouncements to be taken seriously.
Fourth, the declaration says that various rights, such as the right to life and liberty, are unalienable. That is, a person cannot alienate one’s life or freedom as they can legally alienate a piece of property. You can’t take my property if I do not consent to you having it but if I do consent, you can take it; property is alienable, life and liberty are not. The argument of the declaration reflects John Locke’s argument in the Second Treatise of Civil Government;
To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.[1]
…
But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure[2]
…
This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.[3]
The point here is that because your right to life and liberty are from God, no one can legitimately enslave or kill you, even if you consent to it. This was not a mere incidental addendum idea, it was central to Lockean political philosophy, which maintained (as the declaration does) that the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. If a person can consent to be killed or enslaved then they can consent to the government enslaving them also to having the arbitrary power to kill them and hence tyranny can be legitimate. The reason tyranny is illegitimate is because, “No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it.”
The declaration then makes a metaphysical claim: God exists. It makes an epistemological claim about faith and reason: that belief in God is rational independent of proof. It makes an implicit claim of political philosophy: religion is not a private thing that should not influence public life but rather, theological claims should influence public life. Finally it makes a moral claim; that consenting adults do not have a right to do whatever they like with their own bodies, rather there are “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” that bind all human beings, that they are compelled to follow even if all parties consent otherwise. Governments are legitimate to the extent in which they respect these laws.
I agree with PC, it is hard to improve on this philosophy; I have defended it in several places on this blog.
Ironically, however, the militant secular liberals in NZ who parrot the declaration seem committed to attacking these ideas and rejecting them on every point. They argue that belief in God is irrational because it cannot be empirically proven, they claim that the public square should be secular, that religion should be private and not influence public policy and they argue that liberty means consenting adults can do whatever they like with their own bodies and lives. Far from being unalienable, a person’s life and freedom is his property to alienate as that person sees fit.
It is also hard to disagree with PC’s sentiments that the declaration is “A wonderful, wonderful anthem to freedom that rings down through the years. If only the real meaning of those words could be heard and understood.” “Indeed, if only.”
[1] John Locke Second Treatise of Civil Government Section II 4.
[2] Ibid II6.
[3] Ibid IV 23.
Tags: Bill Vallicella · Classical Liberalism · Consenting Adults · David Farrar · Declaration of Independence · Divine Command Theory · Faith and Reason · Liberty · Peter Cresswell · Religion and Public Life · Religious History10 Comments
This is an excellent commentary, thank you!
I am thinking through the statement, "Finally it makes a moral claim; that consenting adults do not have a right to do whatever they like with their own bodies, rather there are 'Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God' that bind all human beings, that they are compelled to follow even if all parties consent otherwise." I am not sure I agree with that as written.
Taken to it's logical conclusion, doesn't this allow the state to prohibit "vices"? If one does not have the freedom to "be wrong", even to the point of destroying oneself, is one truly free?
Or am I reading too much into your statement?
Recent blog post: Happy Independence Day
Very good article.
That reminds me of an article I looked up recently at the excellent Wallbuilders site concerning the argument about the separation of Church and State, and how most people who talk about separation of Church and State (even judges) have got it completely the opposite of what the Founding Fathers actually meant.
[...] here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here as [...]
It’s not like you to quote out of context, Matt.
What I say, in fact, is “With the exception of just a few words, the words could hardly be bettered today (although some of us have tried)…” [Yes, the link was included in the original.]
In the way we’ve tried to improve those few words you can see what we think needs improving. It’s in those “few words” that the problem lies—and for the most part they’re the word on which youy rely above. Those involving God and self-evidence.
Because there’s nothing wrong with the application of the theory of rights that the Declaratioon promulgates; what most needs improving in the Declaration is to make the theory of rights it promulgates defensible, to provide the referents in reality that make the theort necessary; and the highest necessity in this respect is to remove the mystical base on which the Declaration implicity relies, e.g.:
“We hold these truths to be demonstrable in reality: that because the mind is our species’ means of survival and full flourishing, human beings are individually possessed of certain inalienable rights, which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of private property and happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers – and only such powers – from the consent of the governed; that all laws legislated by governments must be for the purpose of securing these rights; that no laws legislated by government may violate these rights; that all citizens are equal before such laws; and that whenever any government becomes destructive of these rights, it is in rebellion against its citizens, who may then remove it and institute new government.
“Now is such a time. More…“
Love it!
Sure Peter, I was not intending to suggest you endorsed all the statements of the declaration. I was thinking more of Farrar’s comments which were less cautious.
But in response to your comments I would make two points.
First, I don’t think you can just take out a few words, and solve the problem. Those words spell out a whole philosophical/theological justification for a position. It might be expedient or prudent to maintain the conclusions of a position while rejecting the premises that support the conclusion, but such a position is rationally unstable unless someone constructs a robust alternative in their place. I suspect you get this but a lot of other people do not, they want to accept premises drawn from theological positions but reject the conclusions that give them plausibility in the first place.
Second, I am skeptical that one can “demonstrate” substantive moral conclusions about the dignity and value of people, by appealing to “secular” or naturalistic facts alone.
Certainly, the statement you refer to does not follow.
The claim “human beings need a mind to survive” does not entail by any rule of logic the conclusion. “human beings have an alienable right ( libertarians actually don’t believe in inalienable rights, as this term was understood in the declaration, see the post above). A lot more serious work needs to be done to make this kind of view plausible.
Hi Matt and Madeleine,
I’ve enjoyed many of your posts, finding most of them well-written and fair-minded. So I’ll leave my first comment with a qualm about this statement:
“Second, the declaration claims that belief in a creator is self-evident; that is, it is a properly basic belief, which is rationally acceptable to hold in the absence of any proof.”
This seems a little anacronistic, especially the use of Plantinga’s term “properly basic.” I’m pretty sure that Thomas Jefferson, the primary writer of the declaration, rejected much of orthodox christianity and was a notorioius deist. Like the unorthodox christian Locke, he rejected the trinity and like other deists, he denied that Jesus Christ was divine, and especially denied the existence of miracles, even editing them out of his own version of the bible.
I think Vallicella was too quick to attribute orthodoxy to Jefferson. The deists varied among each other in terms of which doctrines they accepted or rejected, although they would always deny the historical claims of the Abrahamic religions, especially accounts concerning miracles or divine revelation.
Using the term “divine providence” is not sufficient to count as an orthodox christian. It’s unclear whether he had his own personal understanding of the term or if his belief in divine providence was in conflict with his denial of divine revelation. I tend to suspect the latter, since Jefferson never seemed like a scholar who studied philosophy in depth, but more like a laymen who cherry-picked ideas he found appealing.
With that said, it’s more likely Jefferson adhered to the typical empiricist/foundationalist/evidentialist epistemology prevalent during that century, if he ever bothered to think about the matter. Like many theists, both orthodox and deist, Jefferson probably accepted the cosmological argument, the design argument, or both. If I recall correctly, Jefferson thought it self-evident that we are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights. This is not the same as saying that the existence of god is self-evident. Since he was a man of his times, he probably centented himsef with one of the said arguments.
Also, keep in mind that Jefferson’s audience was obviously more orthodox in their religious beliefs, so he had to tone down his own deistic beliefs to make the declaration more persuasive and less alienating.
Sorry about the ridiculously long post. In order to take issue with your use of “properly basic,” I had to take issue with Vallicella claim about how Jefferson used the term “self-evident.” I take this to be a minor qualm with your post, since what I’ve said doesn’t conflict with your main idea that the declaration expresses a blatantly theistic worldview.
Justin I am not sure you’ve said anything I denied. My claim was the the declaration claimed that belief in a creator God is self evident.
It also claims God is a lawgiver, judge and providentially governs the Universe, that he created men and that inalienable rights are grounded in God. All this is compatible with denying things such as the trinity, or incarnation or even revelation. It expresses a generic theism, compatible with Islam, Christianity, Judaism and some forms of Deism.
I also think too much is made of the fact that Jefferson drafted the declaration. As a draft it has no status, it only became a declaration when others many who were not deists appropriated it as there own statement, hence as the declaration Jefferson is not the author those who jointly made the declaration are. Moreover, what Jefferson privately believed is not the issue its what he stated in the document at that time that determines the meaning.
Finally, your comments about evidentialism are interesting. I remember reading that Scottish common sense foundationalism was quite popular in the US at that time. If this is what is behind the self evident claim, then interestingly Plantinga and Jefferson share a common epistemological source. Reid accepted it as self evident that the Universe was designed ( at least as Del Ratzch interprets him). Hume appeared on some interpretations to hold this view as well.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by ProLifeBlogs and Mary Powers. Mary Powers said: RT @MollyFanning: RT @ProLifeBlogs: The Theology of the Declaration of Independence http://bit.ly/azcSJo #prolife #tcot #Christian #Catholic [...]
There is a Paradox involved in this Matt.
The Paradox is that the true politics of Christianity is a separation of Church and state which is the original condition of the early church and stands in proper contrast to the Legalism and Nationalism of Israel. True Christianity requires the maximum liberty for voluntary action (Charity and virtue), self reliance, and self moral responsibility…not political coercion.
What both Matt and PC are missing here is that secular does not mean irreligious.
Secular truths can at the same time be Religious truth. (In fact people like Rand got famous plagiarizing Christianity cloaking its precepts in ‘scientific’ terms. She did this because like PC she loves God given rights and liberties but hates God)
Yes The Declaration clearly teaches Theist principles but it is no accident that they are framed in Deist terms. These Deist terms are a secularized Christianity in which the very minimum conditions for a Civil society of religious liberty are enunciated in their least sectarian form making them acceptable to the greatest number of 18th century Americans, and to all the separate states, none of which were atheist.
What secular truth is in regards to constitutional law are principles of Justice written in universally acceptable terms so as to get the maximum consent…and it is this consent which becomes the rational basis for our social compact.
Here the Paradox is that this rational form of government is a truly spiritual blessing of the Reformation in which Christianity was purged from the corruption of Political power which was never a proper Christian modus opperandi.
It has never been the goal of pre-millennial Protestantism to create Gods Kingdom on Earth.
That is a Jewish Dispensation that can only happen after the return of Christ.
The Vital possiblity of peace and freedom in society hinge upon the combination of two principles.
The principles of equality and the consent of the governed are the principles that can bridge the chasm between Matt and PC
Though fundamental disagreements exist. Simply by the rational recognition of the principle of consent, this automatically assumes a person is sovereign of themselves and capable of such a compact yet avoids the different structures that underpin individual beliefs. That both parties are willing to consent means they each have their own reasons to support the social compact and grasp the justice of freedom and equality ie Matt agrees with the Founding Fathers as to how Man has his rights and freedom (Via God), whereas PC may say Ayn Rand gave Man Rights…It matters not as long as both parties consent to the constitution.
If an atheist and a theist wish to live in a civil and free society together all they must do is write a social compact in which both atheist and theist have equal rights and that that theses rights are inalienable so that as the Declaration of Independence says any government created can never have the authority to transgress these ie The State is instituted to preserve the equal rights of all.
Think about this Matt.
The Anti Christ will run a Totalitarian religious state with fully regulated markets so that you cannot buy or sell without the number of the beast, and those who refuse to worship him will be killed.
I have more to say on this that can be found here:
http://pc.blogspot.com/2007/06/free-radical-75-right-of-revolution-in.html
Cheers to PC.