Thomas Paine
I recently finished reading the book The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine. You may recognize his name. He was famous for writing a series of pamphlets encouraging American colonist to revolt against England in the late 18th century. His rhetoric was fiery and inspiring to the revolutionaries.
Unfortunately, the work in question does anything but inspire. In The Age of Reason he examined The Holy Bible and made an argument ostensibly against all religion, but really and specifically against all forms of Christianity. It is a very good example of arguments I’ve heard plenty of times over the years. One of the biggest mistakes, in my mind, is a shallow study of the text. He argued over and over that he was “proving” the error of the scriptures by just using the text as presented. In looking only at the text he was ignoring the aspect of context. Like so many others, both proponents of and detractors from the Bible, he read much of his criticism based on the context of his own day, not of the time in which the words were written.
For example he often pointed to the fact that many of the books of the Old and New Testaments could not have been written by the person that Christendom has traditionally ascribed them to. He pointed out information in the text that makes it “clear” that the first five books of the Old Testament were not written by Moses. Given that “fact” he argued that it stands to reason that they are a lie. He could be right. They were likely written by later historians. That doesn’t make them less true. For example, much of early history was passed from one generation to another through oral tradition and are written down much later than the actual events depicted. He also misses the point that the books of the Bible are likely a compilation as opposed to a historical record written contemporary with events. Earlier writings were likely compiled or restated by later writers, the identity of whom is unknown. For example, they often reference events or location names that were not known, or were different from the times they are describing.
Paine gave many examples similar to this one. He also sited places of inconsistency such as the differences in the stated lineage of Jesus in the gospels. Scholars have come to understand these lineages as two types. One is a show of the rights of kingship. The other the priesthood line of authority. Had Paine done more than just apply reason to the writing from his personal context he might have been able to gain more from the scriptures than a way to make the argument in favor of a perspective he likely already had.
There is another interesting line of reason he gave I’d like to consider. The author questioned spiritual experiences such as revelation and prophecy. I get where he was coming from. His point was that if he himself has not had the revelation then he should not accept the experience of others as true, or even that the record of the claimed experience was accurate. This is a reasonable thought to me. Unfortunately he missed the second part of the argument. In fact, he, and we, should do exactly that. We should seek for revelatory experience for ourselves. Instead Paine argues that God does not offer revelation to men.
Much of Paine’s argument was a comparison of what Christians of his day, and those since the days of Jesus (specifically Catholics and Protestants), have said about what is in the scripture. His arguments were as much about how the doctrines of those churches differ from, or make confused, information in the Bible. I also agree with those arguments. However, his perspective of how “reason” trumps these religionists falters. He argued that their reasoning fails because it is not based on evidence like science is. What it seems he is really saying is though they might be based on some evidence, they are not based on enough evidence to justify their reasoning. I could use the same argument in questioning Paine’s perspective by saying it is based on some evidence, but not enough evidence to justify his reasoning. In other words, I question the ability for human kind in general to come to any real understanding of truth through reasoning alone. The arguments of philosophers of science such as Kuhn and Popper point to the faultiness of human reasoning specifically when it comes to science. They would argue that scientific theory and discovery are not an explanation of how things actually are so much as a method for humans to shape a paradigm that explains what limited evidence is available. At some point as more and more evidence is gathered by science there is a fundamental shift in the basis of prevailing scientific theory to cause a new way of looking at the larger explanation of how things in the universe “truly are”. Some philosophers of science believe that is because we are getting closer to truth as more evidence mounts. Others point that there is no assurance that we are getting closer to truth, but are only getting closer to a different way of describing what the evidence means.
In Paine’s defense, much of these philosophical ideas came to light after he wrote The Age of Reason, as did the restoration of the gospel as viewed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In full disclosure, I belong to that particular organization. Our church teaches not to rely on reason, but not reason alone. We are to seek light from the source of all truth. We are taught to seek confirmation of the truth of our reasoning from God directly through prayer, with an expectation of receiving direct revelation. Paine doubted the existence or availability of revelation. So he is sort of offering self-fulfilling prophesy. Since he believed revelation from God is impossible he would neither seek it, nor believe it if it were given to him.
How sad this all is to me. I am somewhat familiar with the general perspectives of science and engineering that Paine espouses as the only true way to understand God. I have made a partial focus of my studies to be about the philosophical views of science. I am currently researching topics about the effects of science and technology have on society, and the effects of society on science and technology. Like the apostle Thomas, the assumption of most scientific practitioners is that if you can’t measure something then it does not exist. Thomas, the apostle, meant that he would not believe the Lord had resurrected without seeing for himself. Science says an experiment has to be replicable. I say receiving a testimony by way of the Holy Ghost is very replicable. Millions of people have run the experiment and received their own measurement of the truth of the Gospel. By leaving out the experiment of seeking, asking and receiving, Paine and others like him are ignoring some of the available evidence that would take them to more truth than they can get on the evidence they self-limit to. How fitting that the author of The Age of Reason shares the name of the apostle famous for doubting.
Unfortunately, the work in question does anything but inspire. In The Age of Reason he examined The Holy Bible and made an argument ostensibly against all religion, but really and specifically against all forms of Christianity. It is a very good example of arguments I’ve heard plenty of times over the years. One of the biggest mistakes, in my mind, is a shallow study of the text. He argued over and over that he was “proving” the error of the scriptures by just using the text as presented. In looking only at the text he was ignoring the aspect of context. Like so many others, both proponents of and detractors from the Bible, he read much of his criticism based on the context of his own day, not of the time in which the words were written.
For example he often pointed to the fact that many of the books of the Old and New Testaments could not have been written by the person that Christendom has traditionally ascribed them to. He pointed out information in the text that makes it “clear” that the first five books of the Old Testament were not written by Moses. Given that “fact” he argued that it stands to reason that they are a lie. He could be right. They were likely written by later historians. That doesn’t make them less true. For example, much of early history was passed from one generation to another through oral tradition and are written down much later than the actual events depicted. He also misses the point that the books of the Bible are likely a compilation as opposed to a historical record written contemporary with events. Earlier writings were likely compiled or restated by later writers, the identity of whom is unknown. For example, they often reference events or location names that were not known, or were different from the times they are describing.
Paine gave many examples similar to this one. He also sited places of inconsistency such as the differences in the stated lineage of Jesus in the gospels. Scholars have come to understand these lineages as two types. One is a show of the rights of kingship. The other the priesthood line of authority. Had Paine done more than just apply reason to the writing from his personal context he might have been able to gain more from the scriptures than a way to make the argument in favor of a perspective he likely already had.
There is another interesting line of reason he gave I’d like to consider. The author questioned spiritual experiences such as revelation and prophecy. I get where he was coming from. His point was that if he himself has not had the revelation then he should not accept the experience of others as true, or even that the record of the claimed experience was accurate. This is a reasonable thought to me. Unfortunately he missed the second part of the argument. In fact, he, and we, should do exactly that. We should seek for revelatory experience for ourselves. Instead Paine argues that God does not offer revelation to men.
Much of Paine’s argument was a comparison of what Christians of his day, and those since the days of Jesus (specifically Catholics and Protestants), have said about what is in the scripture. His arguments were as much about how the doctrines of those churches differ from, or make confused, information in the Bible. I also agree with those arguments. However, his perspective of how “reason” trumps these religionists falters. He argued that their reasoning fails because it is not based on evidence like science is. What it seems he is really saying is though they might be based on some evidence, they are not based on enough evidence to justify their reasoning. I could use the same argument in questioning Paine’s perspective by saying it is based on some evidence, but not enough evidence to justify his reasoning. In other words, I question the ability for human kind in general to come to any real understanding of truth through reasoning alone. The arguments of philosophers of science such as Kuhn and Popper point to the faultiness of human reasoning specifically when it comes to science. They would argue that scientific theory and discovery are not an explanation of how things actually are so much as a method for humans to shape a paradigm that explains what limited evidence is available. At some point as more and more evidence is gathered by science there is a fundamental shift in the basis of prevailing scientific theory to cause a new way of looking at the larger explanation of how things in the universe “truly are”. Some philosophers of science believe that is because we are getting closer to truth as more evidence mounts. Others point that there is no assurance that we are getting closer to truth, but are only getting closer to a different way of describing what the evidence means.
In Paine’s defense, much of these philosophical ideas came to light after he wrote The Age of Reason, as did the restoration of the gospel as viewed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In full disclosure, I belong to that particular organization. Our church teaches not to rely on reason, but not reason alone. We are to seek light from the source of all truth. We are taught to seek confirmation of the truth of our reasoning from God directly through prayer, with an expectation of receiving direct revelation. Paine doubted the existence or availability of revelation. So he is sort of offering self-fulfilling prophesy. Since he believed revelation from God is impossible he would neither seek it, nor believe it if it were given to him.
How sad this all is to me. I am somewhat familiar with the general perspectives of science and engineering that Paine espouses as the only true way to understand God. I have made a partial focus of my studies to be about the philosophical views of science. I am currently researching topics about the effects of science and technology have on society, and the effects of society on science and technology. Like the apostle Thomas, the assumption of most scientific practitioners is that if you can’t measure something then it does not exist. Thomas, the apostle, meant that he would not believe the Lord had resurrected without seeing for himself. Science says an experiment has to be replicable. I say receiving a testimony by way of the Holy Ghost is very replicable. Millions of people have run the experiment and received their own measurement of the truth of the Gospel. By leaving out the experiment of seeking, asking and receiving, Paine and others like him are ignoring some of the available evidence that would take them to more truth than they can get on the evidence they self-limit to. How fitting that the author of The Age of Reason shares the name of the apostle famous for doubting.
RSS Feed