Third, Fischer chides me for juxtaposing "providence" with "deism," as if a deist could not believe in providence. I think she is correct here. A deist could believe in providence--in fact, most of them did. As I have been speaking about the book to various audiences, I have realized that my discussion of "providence" as it relates to deism is not nuanced enough.
Yet I am not sure I agree with Fischer's characterization of my argument here. She seems to think that I am arguing that if a founding father was not a deist, then he must have been a Christian who supported the creation of a uniquely Christian nation. I think a sort of middle intellectual/religious ground is possible here. For example, one could be a theist and still reject the core doctrines of traditional Christianity (such as the Trinity, the resurrection, the inspiration of the Bible, etc...). Gregg Frazer has called this position "theistic rationalism."
Moreover, Fischer makes a logical mistake here. She assumes that if a given founding father was a Christian, then he must have also wanted to promote a uniquely Christian nation. I try to avoid this fallacy in my book, but Fischer wants to suggest that my attempt to paint the founders as non-deists automatically means that I will answer the question in the title of my book in the affirmative.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
John Fea Explains the Middle Ground...
To a more secular oriented critic. A taste: