Note: Dr. Gregg Frazer sends over what is reproduced below:
Problems with Matthew Stewart’s Nature’s God (not in any particular order):
Thesis: “Spinoza is the principle architect of the radical
philosophy that achieves its ultimate expression in the American Republic, and
Locke is its acceptable face. So-called
Lockean liberalism is really just Spinozistic radicalism adapted to the
limitations of the common understanding of things.”
My two favorite lines: a) Locke and Spinoza produce a
“deeply atheistic proof of a God.”
b) Consciousness “may be found in animals, plants, and even
frying pans and thermostats.”
Stewart argues that people falsely identify many with
Christianity and that we should not accept their use of that term uncritically.
He then enormously expands the meaning of “deism” (without substantiation or
support) and expects the reader to accept his use uncritically. Regarding the
examples that he does give to try to show this very broad notion of deism, some
were instances of opponents calling someone a “deist” as an epithet – i.e.
derogatorily; some were simply references to unitarianism, and some merely
denials of orthodox Christianity. Later,
he also takes derogatory charges of “atheist” as proof of someone’s atheism.
This leads to another problem: like the prominent “Christian
America” advocates, Stewart assumes (without proving) a false dichotomy: that
one was either a Christian or a deist (i.e. that those were the only options). So Christian America advocates find a quote
that “proves” that someone disbelieved a deist tenet and proclaim them a
“Christian.” Stewart does the same thing in reverse: if someone is not
incontrovertably an orthodox Christian, he proclaims them a “deist.” [of
course, there was at least one other option: theistic rationalism]
Stewart makes far too much of the content of individual’s
libraries. One need not agree with every
book in one’s library. I have LOTS of
books with which I disagree (including Stewart’s) and others that I have not
read. One must have the books of those
with which one disagrees in order to deal with them knowledgably. Stewart assumes that if a particular person
had a certain book in his library he must have agreed with it. The Christian America people do that, too.
He also makes far too much of notes taken on texts. His assumption is that if someone copied
something from a text or took notes on
it, that the individual was, by that action, showing agreement with the
text/passage. The simplest way to
demonstrate the falsehood of this notion is to confess that I took LOTS of
notes on Stewart’s book – the margins are filled – but I agreed with very
little of it. If someone using Stewart’s
methodology were to pick up my copy of his book, they might conclude that I
loved it because I took so many notes.
Related to this, Stewart also makes a specific error made by
the guru of the Christian America movement – he acts on the assumption that
Jefferson’s Notes on Religion reflect
Jefferson’s own opinion rather than merely encyclopedic entries of what others
believed. The fact that Jefferson begins
a relevant section with “Locke’s system of Christianity is this” and that most
of it is nearly verbatim from Locke does not dissuade Stewart or that guru from
attributing it to TJ.
In this same vein, Stewart (like his Christian America
counterparts) assumes without demonstrating that students agree with all that
their teachers believe/teach. As a
college professor, I only wish that were true. J This saves them from having to show that
someone believed what they attribute to them [which they often did not] – they
just have to show that their teacher believed it.
Another annoying tactic that Stewart shares with his
counterparts on the other side of the argument is regularly suggesting that
first drafts and/or initial discussions tell us more of what someone wanted or
thought than their final draft! He does
it re the Declaration and the Bill of Rights.
I confess I’ve never understood this logic when used by the Christian
America people and I don’t understand it here: what someone REALLY wants or
REALLY means is what they rejected/changed?
Hmmmm.
Stewart suggests throughout that the whole American project
was an assault on religion -- particularly orthodox Christianity. Apparently, the political aspects were more
or less a byproduct. Also, his analysis
is all about the Revolution; for Stewart, revolutionary thought is definitive
for “the American Republic.” This, of
course, ignores the significant changes that came due to experience in the
critical years between 1776 and 1787.
Related to that, to accept Stewart’s thesis, one must
believe that Ethan Allen, Thomas Young, a twentysomething Ben Franklin who
never grew up [America’s Peter Pan], and a partially and conveniently quoted
Thomas Jefferson were THE key political/historical figures in the establishment
of America. Others matter only
tangentially.
To accept his thesis, one must believe that the
Revolutionary/Founding writers did not know who their REAL influences
were. They quoted (as Stewart admits in
a footnote) men such as Pufendorf, Grotius, Beccaria, Blackstone, Montesquieu,
Vattel and others – but the real driving intellectual forces on them were the
ancient Greek Epicurus and the early modern Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza.
More precisely, it was Epicurus channeled by and improved by Spinoza. Stewart
wrote an earlier well-received book on Spinoza and sees the modern world
through Spinozist eyes – and says we should, too. There are a number of hyperbolic statements
to this effect.
He gives a very poor, deficient, and one-sided account of
Franklin’s prayer proposal at the Constitutional Convention. It fits his argument the way he selectively and
creatively reports it, though.
In order to be able to use his favorite adjective –
“Locke-Spinoza” – Stewart terribly abuses John Locke to the point that Locke
scholars will not recognize him. He
quotes Locke partially (with his own commentary interspersed to make it look
like Locke’s), regularly uses ellipses to change the meaning of Lockean
statements, and quotes Locke out of context.
These are also all very familiar tactics for Stewart’s Christian America
counterparts. He takes a square Locke
and forces him into a round Spinoza. He
does the same regarding Jefferson – Jefferson is forced to conform with Spinoza
whether he will or not. To be fair,
Stewart gives a warning/explanation for his distortion of Locke – he explains
that he (basically) subscribes to the Straussian notion of “esoteric”
interpretation (while disagreeing with what Strauss does with it). In other words, as Stewart takes it, Locke
did not know what he meant or was too cowardly to say what he meant, so Stewart
must channel the real Locke and explain what he meant to say or would have said
if he had the nerve. This, presumably,
makes it fine to ignore parts of sentences that are inconvenient and places in
which Locke’s words are diametrically opposed to what Stewart wants from
him. Often, what Stewart leaves out of a
passage or where he cuts it off is more telling than what he quotes.
The same is true with Jefferson, although Stewart actually
quotes passages from Jefferson which contradict Stewart’s take and he just
moves on. One of those cases is
absolutely critical for Stewart’s whole thesis.
He argues that the first sentence of the Declaration is the key to the
whole American enterprise and that they key to that sentence is the idea that
God and Nature are synonymous (not related – synonymous). He says that Jefferson held this view (pretty
important since he wrote the sentence) – but quotes from Jefferson on pages
189, 190, and 194 clearly show Jefferson saying the contrary! Undeterred, Stewart proceeds as if his take
is confirmed.
Also re Jefferson: Stewart takes very seriously Jefferson’s statement: “I am an Epicurean” – not so
much Jefferson’s statement: “I am a Christian” or his statement: “I am a sect
unto myself.”
As noted briefly above, Stewart – like many who desperately
want Franklin to be a deist – keeps Franklin at 19 years of age or in his
twenties. Stewart’s Franklin apparently
died at 28. He quotes Franklin’s
famous/infamous confession that he became a deist (at age 19), but somehow
(like others) misses Franklin’s statement two pages later that he grew out of
it. Stewart is also apparently unaware
of Franklin’s essay On the Providence of
God in the Government of the World in which he explicitly rejects deism as
irrational (at the ripe old age of 24).
Stewart also cites Franklin’s Dissertation
on Liberty and Necessity to show Franklin’s agreement with Stewart’s
thesis, but Franklin wrote that at age 19 and years later considered it an
embarrassment – he burned as many copies as he could find. Stewart says “he
never gave reason to think that he [Peter Pan Franklin] ever departed from the
convictions acquired as [a] youthful bibliophile” [meaning his twentysomething
position].
The book vastly overemphasizes Hobbes’s influence in
America.
Stewart seriously mangles the meaning/interpretation of
several biblical passages. At one point,
he admits concerning a passage written by the apostle Paul: “the ultimate
implications of this intuition about God are dramatically different from anything
Paul seems to have contemplated.” Then that should call into serious question
your implications/interpretation!
Stewart has his own idiosyncratic notion of the meaning and
purpose of the First Amendment. By his
account, it does not – and was not designed to – guarantee religious freedom.
He constantly uses unqualified, universal terms such as “the
founders of the American Republic” and “America’s founders” when ascribing
ideas – as if they were all of the same mind.
I doubt that he’s ever heard of
Roger Sherman.
His constant condescending, arrogant, and rather snarky jabs
at anyone foolish enough to be religious or to believe in God is equal parts
annoying and inappropriate in an academic work.
The last chapter is devoted to making fun of religion and those who are
superstitious or gullible enough to believe in something beyond Nature. “Alert” readers or persons are those who
share his views. Conventional religion
relies on “make-believe” and “self-deception,” but his preferred philosophers
produce “knowledge.” Philosophical
assumption and/or “doctrine” is fact/”truths.”
Those who refuse to bow to the “obvious” superiority of atheism, simply
show “the tenacity of their ignorance” and promote “hallucinations of divine
agency.”
He argues that deism was not limited to the elite (pg. 37),
then proceeds to talk throughout about the difference betweent the views of the
elite and those of the common people who were conventionally religious (e.g.
pgs. 32, 35, 68, 73, 122, 274, 404-05).
He argues without substantiation re the Great Awakening:
“the revival, while pretending to unite the nation, in reality unified it only
in the belief that there are aliens in our midst.”
He criticizes “enthusiasts” for making personal, sensory
judgments, but approves of so-called “deists” making them – ostensibly because
he approves of the judgments.
Like certain groups today, he attempts to stifle alternate
views and studies with which he would disagree: “The new Christian nationalists
[which, in his example, includes Mark David Hall, Daniel Dreisbach, et al and
yours truly] represent a powerful force within American history, but their
success consists chiefly in creating the illusion of a debate where in
substance there is none. … scholars tout
their ‘even-handedness’ by giving equal credence to every ‘narrative’ of the
history, however fatuous. A version of
this false equivalence can be found in [Hall, Dreisbach, & Morrison’s] The Forgotten Founders on Religion and
Public Life.” Those who do not know
should be aware that there are no chapters from the “Christian America”/David
Barton extreme in this book – they are all written by established scholars in
the field from places such as Stanford, George Mason, American University, James
Madison Univ., Notre Dame, Univ. of Texas, etc.
But because they do not subscribe to Stewart’s “everyone was an atheist
deist” view, their views are “fatuous” and unworthy of inclusion in discussion!
Stewart may have included his own marching orders on page
333: “Like revolutionaries throughout history, Young and his gang understood
that in order to change the future it is necessary first to change the
past.” That appears to be Stewart’s real
project.
