<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>First Things RSS Feed - Steven Waldman</title>
		<link>https://www.firstthings.com/author/steven-waldman</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.firstthings.com/rss/author/steven-waldman" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description></description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2025 First Things. All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
		<managingEditor>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</webMaster>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:51:45 -0500</pubDate>
		
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title>The Pious Infidel</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2008/03/the-pious-infidel</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2008/03/the-pious-infidel</link>
			<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> Though the most Deistic of the Founding Fathers, even Jefferson was not a full-fledged Deist if we accept that philosophy as having had two fundamental tenets: a rejection of biblical revelation  
<em> and </em>
  a conviction that God, having created the laws of the universe, had receded from day-to-day control and intervention. Jefferson clearly did agree with the first part of Deism. But he did not agree with the second.   
<br>
  
<br>
 Jefferson seemed to believe in a God who was still present in, and intervened in, the lives of men and nations. After having read Jefferson attack so many of the legs of religion, it might seem jarring to now read his regular invocations of God as a personal force in life&mdash;sometimes in terms so direct and literal, they surpass those of today&rsquo;s politicians.  
<br>
  
<br>
 In his first inaugural address, he declared that we should be &ldquo;acknowledging and adoring an overruling Providence, which by all its dispensations proves that it delights in the happiness of man here and his greater happiness hereafter.&rdquo; In his first message to Congress, in 1801, he thanked the &ldquo;beneficent Being&rdquo; who instilled in thee warring politicians a (temporary) &ldquo;spirit of conciliation and forgiveness.&rdquo;  
<br>
  
<br>
 In his second message, he credited the &ldquo;smiles of Providence&rdquo; for economic prosperity, peace abroad, and even good relations with the Indians. He never stopped asserting the importance of separating church and state, but he did this in the context of repeated public pronouncements about the powerful role of an intervening God in the fate of America. These two somewhat contradictory themes came together most directly in his second inaugural address. In the first part of the speech, he defended his practice of not issuing days of fasting or thanksgiving proclamations. But toward the end, he said that to avoid making the mistakes to which he, as a human, was prone, &ldquo;I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life.&rdquo;   
<br>
  
<br>
 Some look at Jefferson&rsquo;s public pronouncements and sense cynicism. Recall his comment about &ldquo;cooking up&rdquo; an effective prayer proclamation to rally lethargic Americans. Perhaps he was just being a pol, using the language he thought would most appeal to his audience. But the evidence is stronger that Jefferson genuinely believed in a personal God and a spirit life. For one thing, he went much further in his pronouncements than he needed to, attributing a wide range of events and policies to God&rsquo;s &ldquo;smiles.&rdquo; More important, his private letters reflected a similar view about the nature of God. In a letter to Eliza Trist, he declared that &ldquo;it is not easy to reconcile ourselves to the many useless miseries to which Providence seems to expose us. But his justice affords a prospect that we shall all be made even some day.&rdquo; In 1763, he wrote John Page that if we hope to fortify ourselves from misfortunes, &ldquo;The only method of doing this is to assume a perfect resignation to the Divine will, to consider whatever does happen, must happen.&rdquo; In 1801, he commended &ldquo;your endeavors to the Being, in whose hand we are.&rdquo; When Napoleon was defeated, he wrote to a friend: &ldquo;It proves that we have a god in heaven. That he is just, and not careless of what passes in the world.&rdquo;   
<br>
  
<br>
 How could this ultra-rationalist&mdash;a believer in science and reason&mdash;so fully embrace a supernatural God watching over our lives? This is another case in which today&rsquo;s activists and scholars, by applying the standards and definitions of our time, misunderstand the ideas of a Founding Father. Remember: In this era before Charles Darwin, most of the Enlightenment leaders were  
<em> not </em>
  arguing against the existence of God. On the contrary, they argued that the laws of science actually  
<em> proved </em>
  the existence of God, if one knew how to look at it the right way.   
<br>
  
<br>
 Jefferson believed that our spiritual journeys must be led by reason, not faith. In a letter to his nephew Peter Carr, he urged rigorous application of scientific principles to the Bible. For instance, he encouraged Carr to look at the story of Joshua making the sun stand still and then added, &ldquo;You are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped&rdquo; without then having &ldquo;prostrated animals, trees, buildings.&rdquo; Jefferson conceded that such an investigation might take the young man away from God. &ldquo;Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. It if ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you.&rdquo; If, on the other hand, &ldquo;you find reason to believe there is a God,&rdquo; you will find comfort and happiness in that, too. And you should not feel badly or anti-God should your mind take you away from the church, since &ldquo;your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven.&rdquo; 
<br>
  
<br>
 It&rsquo;s not absurd to read such passages and conclude that Jefferson was a relativist. If it&rsquo;s up to everyone&rsquo;s individual reasoning process to determine religious truth, then is there any genuine reality? This impression was reinforced by his statement in  
<em> Notes on the State of Virginia </em>
  that &ldquo;it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god.&rdquo; But Jefferson did believe in religious truth; he just had an overriding conviction that it was reason, acting in the marketplace of ideas, that would lead people to find it. &ldquo;It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.&rdquo; 
<br>
  
<br>
 Jefferson himself was  
<em> not </em>
  an agnostic on this point. He applied reason and critical scientific thought to the world and concluded that God  
<em> does </em>
  exist. Read this extraordinary letter from Jefferson to John Adams on April 11, 1823, and it&rsquo;s possible to see how his anti-Christian, rationalist approach nonetheless led him to a deep love of God. 
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2008/03/the-pious-infidel">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
