Were any Founding Fathers atheists?

[Charlemagne_II]

“It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule extends with more or less force to every specie of free government. Who that is sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric? … Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that Morality can be maintained without Religion.” George Washington

Ben Franklin’s Plea:

At the Constitutional Convention, 1787, James Madison recorded the following remarks made by Benjamin Franklin to the president of the Convention:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by Human Wisdom and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

"I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

Mr. Sherman seconded the motion.

The motion was generally supported in principle, with several reservations, but it failed to carry when it was realized that the Convention had no funds to arrange for the carrying out of it.

 

[crowonsnow]

The notion that we have inalienable rights given by a Creator but also are a fallen race capable of bad things making it necessary for separation of powers most closely reflects the Judeo-Christian understanding of the nature of man.

How is the US Constitution about a fallen race and where is there a separation of powers in Jewish/Christian History?

 

[a_priori]

How is the US Constitution about a fallen race and where is there a separation of powers in Jewish/Christian History?

Let’s put the horse in front of the cart. The Judeo-Christian understanding of man is that we have inherent value but that we have a tendency to do bad things. Great but flawed. This comes first. Fast forward. We have a Constitution that respects God-given inalienable rights but that also builds in safeguards for our tendency to do bad things. Hence, separation of powers.

Separation of powers is not overtly contained in “Jewish/Christian history”. SOP is the political result of a pre-existing condition, not plucked from antiquity fully formed.

 

[crowonsnow]

The Judeo-Christian understanding of man is that we have inherent value but that we have a tendency to do bad things.

That is certainly not exclusively Jewish/Christian.

We have a Constitution that respects God-given inalienable rights …

There is no mention of any god given inalienable rights in the US constitution.

 

[a_priori]

There is no mention of any god given inalienable rights in the US constitution.

You’re not paying attention. I said “We have a Constitution that respects God-given inalienable rights…” And we do.

 

[crowonsnow]

We have a Constitution that respects God-given inalienable rights…

We have a constitution that respects atheism too, and a host of other things. What exactly is your point?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

If the Founding Fathers were on these fora, they would be condemned for their “liberalism”…

They would also be praised for their universal belief in God and their opposition to atheism.

You also have not read the earlier posts.

Congratulations on “knowing” what I do or do not read. I did in fact read the lot - before I posted.​

Thomas Jefferson guts the NT - but who cares about that ? The fellow is a Founding Father, so all’s well. But liberals today ? They are not “praised for their universal belief in God and their opposition to atheism” when they are Christians - that all counts for nothing; on the contrary, they’re treated as lepers, almost as devil-worshippers. This looks like the application of a double standard.

 

[a_priori]

We have a constitution that respects atheism too, and a host of other things. What exactly is your point?

Yes, of course the Constitution should and does respect atheism. You seem to be working diligently to miss my point. My point (exactly) is that our form of government works because it is taylor-made to match who we are and how we are constructed emotionally and spiritually. Atheists (and everyone else) benefit from a system such as ours that provides the necessary freedoms we deserve (no thanks to a purely mechanical universe) and the “guardrails” we need to have some order in the way we conduct our political affairs.

The Founding Fathers started with the presupposition that we have been endowed by a Creator with baseline rights. You simply cannot argue that away. Don’t blame me. It is history. Atheists should sit back and enjoy the ride instead of frustrating themselves by trying to force the square peg of revisionist history into the round hole of reality.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow

*There is no mention of any god given inalienable rights in the US constitution. *

That’s true, but in the Declaration of Independence there is. The same founders brought us both documents. The Constitution would not have been possible without the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, the Constitution in the First Amendment protects religious liberty and any usurpation of that liberty by any government. I’m not aware that it specifically protects atheistic liberty, unless you want to declare atheism a kind of religion.

Which as far as I’m concerned you’re welcome to do.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Fone Bone

Interesting analysis.

The fact remains that there are no discernible atheists among the Founders. There are many traditional Christians for the reason given above. If if they were not the most famous of the Founders, the Constitution would not have been possible without their active support. Deists may not be orthodox Christians yet at the same time be imbued with the values of Christ by their upbringing (this is true of many atheists as well). These values are reflected in the way the Constitution was created, to maximize liberty and minimize tyranny. It simply cannot be said that the mindset of deism was sufficient by itself to create a system that was so very much in harmony with Christian values.

Jefferson, Adams, Paine and others spoke harshly against the Catholic Church. That doesn’t mean they were not infected by Catholic values and biblical values. It was Catholicism, not Protestantism, that carried Christ and the Bible through the Dark Ages. And whatever Protestant Christianity knows of Christ, one thing it cannot deny: it would know hardly anything if not for the Catholic Church.

The same applies to the deists. What they had of humanitarian values they first learned in their Christian churches. They did not learn them seated at the feet of deists or atheists.

Thank you for your response. First off, I agree and think it has been made abundantly clear that none of our country’s Founding Fathers were atheists.

Furthermore, you are of course correct - at least, in my view - that the principles on which they founded the United States of America are entirely compatible with Christian beliefs. But that compatibility does not mean that those principles themselves are Christian, nor that Christianity necessarily caused them.

Were the Founding Fathers influenced by their Christian upbringing? I certainly wouldn’t have the audacity to claim otherwise. But this quote I think reveals the problem with your perspective on this:

It simply cannot be said that the mindset of deism was sufficient by itself to create a system that was so very much in harmony with Christian values.

In a sense, I agree. The mindset of deism was not the origin of the American system of government. The principles that produced the American system of government are not purely or even principally religious (Christian, deistic, atheistic) at all, but rather philosophical - they are principles of modern, liberal, republican, Enlightenment-era political philosophy.

Actually, in school this semester I have been reading works from the Enlightenment period. I am no scholar or expert by any means, but even a cursory overview of works by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Paine, etc., revealed to me in extraordinarily specific ways the origin of particular principles, ideas, and rhetoric that were put into practice by the establishment of the uniquely American form of government.

So of course it’s not just ‘‘deistic’’ principles that gave rise to such a system. In fact, I think there’s something to be said for a priori’s assertion that the political philosophy on which the Constitution is based has identifiably Christian elements.

But ultimately, I think it is an oversimplification at best and and obfuscation at worst to declare that our country was founded on ‘‘Christian principles.’’ I believe those principles are compatible with Christianity and perhaps even contain echoes of Christian assumptions, but there’s nothing so specifically Christian about them that makes it justifiable to identify them as such.

I think Rousseau was right that Christianity, because of its otherworldliness and emphasis on our heavenly citizenship, makes for a poor state religion, which is why - even as a Christian - I would not want a Christian state. I think that St. Augustine was right to contrast the city of God with the city of man.

For all these reasons, I would not identify the United States of America - an earthly nation - as a ‘‘Christian country’’ (except in the sense that most Americans are Christian) nor be willing to claim that it is founded on ‘‘Christian principles.’’

I hope all of that makes sense, and I of course welcome any critiques and further discussion.

 

[Leela]

Look for the quotes that explicitly state that the country was founded on Christian principles.

Which Christian principles?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Fone Bone
*
For all these reasons, I would not identify the United States of America - an earthly nation - as a ‘‘Christian country’’ (except in the sense that most Americans are Christian) nor be willing to claim that it is founded on ‘‘Christian principles.’’*

Your analysis tries to fair-minded but is flawed by the fact that you seem to see no Christian influence on the Founders. A Christian principle does not have to be clearly enunciated (if that’s what you are looking for … “Love thy neighbor,” for example) to be clearly embedded in the Constitution. The Preamble makes clear that the purpose of the Constitution is to establish justice and maintain the peace, two eminently Christian goals, without having to cite book, chapter, and verse of Scripture that preaches these things.

Jefferson spoke of himself as a Christian (certainly not orthodox). Adams quoted the Bible. So did Franklin and Hamilton. The rest of the founders (excepting Paine) were certainly Christian in one degree or another. To say that the Constitution was approved by thirteen states of Christians who did not see it as in harmony with their own religion is to argue against the probable with a definite improbable.

Archbishop Stephen Langton managed to supervise the hammering out of the Magna Carta agreed to by the tyrant King John and his barons. The purpose of the Magna Carta was to achieve justice and establish peace between the King and the barons, and to prevent a civil war that was about to start. To say that Archbishop Langton’s Christianity had nothing to do with the Magna Carta is the same as to say that the founders were not acting with the good will of Christians when they hammered out a Constitution that was designed to establish good will and fair play for the present and future generations of Americans.

And as Ben Franklin put it during the Constitutional Convention:

"We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel; … I therefore beg leave to move – that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.”

Do you think these clergy would have been deist, atheist, Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian?

…

However, I would offer a caveat. I think the United States is no longer a Christian nation … and I think we are much the worse for it. We have betrayed the fundamental Christian right embedded in the Declaration of Independence and preserved in the law of the land until Roe v Wade … the right to life.

Since that right has been betrayed, and is a cruel betrayal of the right of the weakest and most defenseless of human beings … the unborn … I think we can fairly say the country has been handed over to evil-doers. Some of them may call themselves Christian … even Catholic … more’s the pity.

 

[crowonsnow]

Yes, of course the Constitution should and does respect atheism. You seem to be working diligently to miss my point. My point (exactly) is that our form of government works because it is taylor-made to match who we are and how we are constructed emotionally and spiritually. Atheists (and everyone else) benefit from a system such as ours that provides the necessary freedoms we deserve (no thanks to a purely mechanical universe) and the “guardrails” we need to have some order in the way we conduct our political affairs.

Yes, they were smart people.

The Founding Fathers started with the presupposition that we have been endowed by a Creator with baseline rights. You simply cannot argue that away. Don’t blame me. It is history. Atheists should sit back and enjoy the ride instead of frustrating themselves by trying to force the square peg of revisionist history into the round hole of reality.

Super. Now show us all the gods and creators in our constitution.

 

[a_priori]

Super. Now show us all the gods and creators in our constitution.

You don’t seem to be getting it. I’m sorry.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Super. Now show us all the gods and creators in our constitution.

There is only one God … the Judeo-Christian God.

Zeus wasn’t even a contender. Try to keep the discussion dignified.

 

[1holycatholic]

I really, honestly, can’t understand why Polemical Atheists and Christians (and whatever religion you may have) feel this strange desire to Co-Opt the following groups:

1.) Agnostics

Would those be agnostics who believe in a god or gods, or agnostics who don’t believe in a god or gods?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

• Originally Posted by TheAtheist View Post
  I really, honestly, can’t understand why Polemical Atheists and Christians (and whatever religion you may have) feel this strange desire to Co-Opt the following groups:

1.) Agnostics*

If you can name a Founder who called himself an agnostic, we’re all ears.

I doubt that it’s possible, since the term “agnostic” and what it stands for only became popular after Darwin’s bulldog Thomas Henry Huxley coined it.

 

[crowonsnow]

You don’t seem to be getting it. I’m sorry.

The Founding Fathers saw fit to eliminate all gods and creators from our Constitution. Whatever their argued religious leaning, that fact speaks volumes. There is really nothing else to “get.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

crowonsnow
*
that fact speaks volumes*

Volumes of what? Are you saying they banished religion from the Constitution? You can’t say that! The Constitution’s 1st Amendment actually protects the free practice of religion, thank God!

And which religion was it obviously trying to protect? The Judeo-Christian, of course, there being no other at that time.

 

[a_priori]

There is really nothing else to “get.”

The thing you don’t “get” is the fact that the Constitution didn’t come out of a vacuum. It was informed by concepts and principles that some people apparently find so troubling that they cannot allow themselves to accept simple value-neutral history.