This dialogue began with an article entitled, "Just say ‘NO’ to a Constitutional Amendment". This began a long-term email relationship with a 70 year-old atheist.
*************************************
-Original Message-----
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 98 1:56 PM
Subject: Just say NO to Constitutional amendments
Sterling.... just read your wonderful essay on 'Just say NO to all amendment proposals. It was great until the 5th part. I am an atheist/agnostic and know what you said about the constitution and all the rest, but some times we carried away with Christ. Show me any evidence that he is even interested in our liberty, by any actions that he has produced in the last 2000 yrs. We ARE living in a pretty corrupt society [produced by our Government, mostly] because they do not know the bounds of the constitution. It us up to us, not some unknown entity to help us....besides, his book [bible] says to be subservient to the 'powers that be'. John, for a little more enlightenment, read Thomas Paines book called AGE OF REASON. A great book and it's no wonder that several of the founding fathers were 'deists' only. **************************************
Sat, 24 Jan 1998 17:48:06 -0800
C J- Many thanks for the kind words regarding my "just say NO" article. I am truly glad that you were so candid about both your agreement and disagreement with my article.
Religion and politics are two of my favorite subjects! They are also the subjects that most people tell you to avoid when at family reunions and other gatherings. But dialog is good, I think, and much can be gleaned from the intelligent, rational discourse of genuinely inquiring minds.
I am persuaded that most people develop their belief system early in life from a combination of experience and the instruction of elders whom we respect. Often, most people do not ever engage in a deep, soul-searching quest of their own but rather, simply store any information that comes along which agrees with their pre-conceived notions. This is true of Christians and non-Christians. Irrespective of the truth, most of ussimply get comfortable with an idea and then become resistant to the winds of change.
I don't know how old you are or what kinds of experiences have shaped your belief system. I can't say that I don't care, because I do. I am not acquainted with your particular method(s) of sifting through information, conducting rational analysis, and forming conclusions. I am reasonably certain of this, however, that if you have a desire to know the truth and are diligent in the pursuit thereof, you will have it. There is certainly more written on the subject than either of us will have the time to read in our lifetime!
One of my passions is sociology; specifically, the study of the impact of religion on the fields of politics and law. You may read all that I have written on the subject of the law and agree with every word and still not accept the religious aspects or the spiritual principles upon which I find the law fashioned. That's OK.
Of course, I would be lying if I said I wasn't interested in "converting" you. But I promise I will not ever "brow-beat" or "condemn you for your stand in relation to God. I would consider it an honor to dialog with you, explain any matters of Christian Doctrine that you have, or discuss any of your (or my) views on the subject. I do not have time to "debate" or in engage in any "defense" against attacks on my faith, but I will explain how I have come to hold the views that I do. Then, you make up your own mind.
Of course, if you already feel that you have availed yourself to the best information sources, and are confident that your position is unassailable, then please share your sources with me so that I might review them as well.
Again, thanks for the kind words and all of the efforts you are personally putting into restoring our nation to its constitutional ideals.
Sincerely,
John A. Sterling
********************************
C J- I found this in my archives which touches the issue of the faith of our founders. (responding to your comment about "deists")
It is interesting that you referred me to the writings of Thomas Paine for "enlightenment" for that is exactly the popular belief system that Paine embraced. Of course, the "Enlightenment" never caught on here in America as it did in Europe and the Americans that did subscribe were distinctly more tempered by Christian influence than their European counterparts.
*******************************
"Notes on the Founders" was written to counter some of the arguments raised by Mr. Harmon. It was later HTML coded and added to the web site. *******************************
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:56:34 -0700 From: "C J"
John, I appreciate your reply. Like yourself, I have read numerous books also, starting back in the 70's when I was excommunicated from the Mormon church. I looked everywhere for the 'truth' and arrived at the opinion that it wasn't in Christianity. Looked into 'New Age' stuff, etc for years and come to the conclusion that your religion can only be had through 'faith'.
Faith is what made me believe the mormon church was the only true and living church in the whole world. [Till I started asking questions] and that is what got me ex'd. I will be 70 years old my next birthday and am still open, but you would have to overcome the following several excellent books that I have listed below. I know, that is not your job, but these men did an outstanding job of bible study and putting down objections that are hard to overcome.
"Transactional psychologists have verified what most of us have known intuitively all along: that the stronger are a person's motives for certain interpretations of the data confronting him, the more likely are the chances that those will be the interpretations he will come up with, even though they be radically wrong. Said Andre Gide in 'Pretexts,' "Most often people seek in life occasions for persisting in their opinions rather than for educating themselves.... It seems as if the mind enjoys nothing more than sinking deeper into error." The person with the self-sealing system that Oppenheimer describes (section 18) cannot be convinced at all. He has become uncannily proficient at transmuting all experiential verification to conform to that which he wants to believe. He now has adequate defenses against countervailing evidence to discount almost anything that would prove detrimental to his cherished beliefs, to revamp information that threatens long-established convictions. Religious faith (which is just such a closed system), if strong enough, will protect a person from the arguments appearing in a book such as this, just as the faith of people who want to believe that their destinies lie in the stars is enough to protect them from the declarations of 186 noted scientists who feel it important to convince them that they are wrong.
Bertrand Russell was talking about this kind of "religious" faith when, in 'Human Society in Ethics and Politics', he tells us that he believes that all faiths do harm. He defines faith as the belief in anything for which no evidence exists. If there is evidence, faith is not required. We do not need faith to believe that vinegar is bitter or that water is wet. We use the term faith only when emotion dominates reason. Faith, for Mencken, was a kind of clearing house for all the various conspiracies religionists contrive in order to deny or distort the facts that our senses present to us to make up what we call our existence. Faith, he was sure, is the force that foments the concerted attacks against what can be called a rational moral philosophy." [Chester Dolan, "Holy Daze: Coming to Grips with "Religion," the Holy Daze of Humanity", "Faith" section, pp.130-135, MOPAH Publications]
***************************************
PS John, your essay on the bible and the Law was excellent! I sent it off to a couple of my mormon friends.... Also.................. "But there is a kind of faith, as we all well know, that is an essential ingredient in the lives of all human beings. This faith is of a different sort, not faith in (or in the existence of) a pathologically jealous supreme being who would have us all wasting our valuable time in endless, meaningless rituals "glorifying his name." Nor is it faith in a mythological hell in which we will all fry for eternity who do not genuflect to this demeaning concept of the utter dependence of the human species. Alan Watts says in 'The Book,' "Irrevocable commitment to any religion is not only intellectual suicide; it is positive unfaith because it closes the mind to any new vision of the world. Faith is, above all, openness - an act of trust in the unknown."
What we need is faith in the boundless reach of an open mind. Having an open mind does not mean that we do not have firm convictions, but that we are not afraid of new ideas. Persons with firm convictions, well founded, need new ideas from time to time, against which they can constantly test their convictions in a changing world, perhaps to alter them or perhaps to make their convictions even more firm. If we are confident of the truth and validity of our convictions, whatever they may be, we have nothing to fear.
We shall not serve our convictions, whatever they may be, by self-deception. Convictions
that can be defended only by disregarding facts, lying to oneself and others, are not worth
keeping."
[Chester Dolan, "Holy Daze: Coming to Grips with "Religion,"
One more, John
"The Christian god can be easily pictured as virtually the same as the many ancient gods of
past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious.
If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look
at the caliber of the people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools
and hypocrites."
[Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to his nephew, Peter Carr]
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions more than our opinions in
physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public
confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument,
unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those
privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right;
that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by
bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess
and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation,
yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to
intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of
principles, on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys
all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions
the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall
square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil
government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace
and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the
proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by
human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors
ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
[Jefferson and Madison, from the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom]
"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems
vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and
with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain
much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence
that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the
fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds
from dunghills."
[Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814]
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
[Benjamin Franklin]
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and
God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil
power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
[Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]
"The nearest I can make it out, 'Love your Enemies' means, 'Hate your Friends'."
[Benjamin Franklin]
"I think vital religion has always suffered when orthodoxy is more regarded than virtue. The
scriptures assure me that at the last day we shall not be examined on what we thought but
what we did."
[Benjamin Franklin, letter to his father, 1738]
------- "I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." [Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728] ------- "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." [Benjamin Franklin, Works, Vol. VII, p. 75] ------- "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies." [Benjamin Franklin, in _Toward The Mystery_] ------- "My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the dissenting [puritan] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's lectures. [Robert Boyle (1627-1691) was a British physicist who endowed the Boyle Lectures for defense of Christianity.] It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist" [Benjamin Franklin, "Autobiography,"p.66 as published in *The American Tradition in Literature,* seventh edition (short), McGraw-Hill,p.180] ------- "The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason." [Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard, 1758]
****************************************************
Subject: impressed Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 08:26:56 -0800 From: John Sterling Wow! I'm impressed! Not very many 70 year- olds have the drive or initiative to learn about computers and become "high tech" email junkies! I am 45 and really only have become computer literate in the last couple of years (three or four, I guess). Now, I am a full-time student of law and Government and a part-time teacher at a local college. I had to chuckle when I read some of the quotes from the philosophers that you sent to me. (You really DID get on a roll!) Their observations about human nature are right on the money. I am fascinated with why we tend more to try to find evidence to support our belief than we do towards being open to truth. Moreover, I don't really think we have the capacity to understand ALL truth anyway- we are much to simple (or the truth is much too complex). Or, maybe its the other way around. Maybe truth is simple and our nature is to make much out of nothing.
I make a distinction between people of faith and "religious" people. To be sure, "religion" and "religious people" are some of the most narrow-minded pin-heads ever to walk upright. Jesus had the same thing to say about the religious piety of His day. Ben Franklin's observations are exactly in line with Jesus on that point!
But I take issue with the position that "faith" equates to "emotion". That statement simply expresses an inability or unwillingness to explore the depths of the faith experience of millions of astute, intellectual and well-reasoned people over the years. It also seeks to give some moral superiority to the claimant by "putting down" those who have experienced greater depth of faith in their own lives. (Akin to saying, "I haven't experienced it, so it cannot be true!)
I am familiar with the Jefferson quotes you sent along. I could send back to you and equal or greater number of quotes that reflect exactly the opposite and we could engage in the "great quotes" wars. I think that would not cut deep enough to the heart of the matter to satisfy a true intellectual- that is only the kind of "evidence" that satisfies theshallow thinker.
What is intriguing, I think, about Jefferson's perspectives on God, Jesus, Religion, and the Church, is that his own contemporaries disagreed on his beliefs. Even those who knew him and talked to him about it even disagreed as to his positions. Further, there is evidence that Jefferson's own position changed at least three times over the years. I read where, when his wife died, he went through an intense, anti-God period of faith-questioning. As a young man he certainly rebelled against his orthodox upbringing (as did I) and was profoundly influenced by the "Enlightenment" philosophy coming out of Europe.
I admire Jefferson and Franklin and their views on law and government are ones after which my own are patterned. All of the founders agreed that the "principles" of law and government upon which our system is founded, are firmly rooted in Christianity. The difference with Jefferson and Franklin as from the other founders (and it was one of degree only) was whether they could accept the claims of the Diety of Christ on a personal level. Many of the writers saw hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness (especially the Christians) and were disagreed as to the proper role of government in that very area but the fundamental PRINCIPLES were never in dispute.
John
************************************************************
*****************************************************************
Subject:
Re: just in passing...........
Date:
Sat, 31 Jan 1998 11:05:05 -0800
From:
John Sterling
Each discipline above mentioned begins an argument by making certain assumptions. If the
assumptions were always true, the conclusions would be consistent no matter which "path" one
chose. Unfortunately, we know that all of the assumptions are NOT true.
Thank goodness we don't still practice the "science" of bloodletting to heal our infirmities!
John
************************************************
©
1999 Law and Liberty Foundation Legal Disclaimer
This site powered
by MavCorp