Thread: The Age of Reason

I have finally completed a review of Thomas Paine’s “The Age of Reason”, as suggested that I do by the person going by Thomas Paine within this forum. Overall, I agreed with many things within this writing. My main issues are with Paine’s conclusions that indicated he did not complete a thorough review of the Bible, nor could he really understand it considering the approach he took. I also do not consider this post as a complete review of his work (I have more input on his writings, this is just a summary). While I do understand more about the Deist views, I still disagree that many of the Founding Fathers were Deist. While obviously some were, it is a stretch to include others. I would appreciate other’s input on this summary review, where I may have left out some important points or misinterpreted Paine’s words and anyone else’s general thoughts on the subject.

First, I completely agree with this statement:

Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind;

I also agree with this statement, which is one of the main points for Paine’s argument:

Scarcely any two nations speak the same language, or understand each other; and as to translations, every man who knows anything of languages knows that it is impossible to translate from one language to another, not only without losing a great part of the original, but frequently of mistaking the sense; and besides all this, the art of printing was wholly unknown at the time Christ lived.

These are what I thought were his other main points:

The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject, the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God. The word of God exists in something else.

No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

But some, perhaps, will say: Are we to have no word of God — no revelation? I answer, Yes; there is a word of God; there is a revelation. THE WORD OF GOD IS THE CREATION WE BEHOLD and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.

We can know God only through his works. We cannot have a conception of any one attribute but by following some principle that leads to it. We have only a confused idea of his power, if we have not the means of comprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of his wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts. The principles of science lead to this knowledge; for the Creator of man is the Creator of science; and it is through that medium that man can see God, as it were, face to face.

It is only by the exercise of reason that man can discover God. Take away that reason, and he would be incapable of understanding anything.

I agree with much of what he is saying here as well, however, he is jumping to some conclusions that I think are incorrect. In summary, there are three main conclusions that Thomas came to in this writing:

1. That revelation is only good for the one receiving the revelation, otherwise it is hearsay.
2. That the human language is inadequate to contain God’s word and the contradictions and errors in the Bible is proof of this.
3. That the only way to know God is through “reason” and scientific understanding or in other words through “God’s Creations”.

One problem I have with his conclusions is that there is an assumption that God basically just left us to only study science as God’s “language”, or to not really “find” God at all. While I agree that the creations around us are part of the evidence we do have of a creator, I disagree that God intended only this method of “communication” with us. According to Thomas, it would seem only those with a “scientific bent” would be able to actually “communicate” with and/or “know” God.

For the first conclusion mentioned above, one of his points is regarding the definition of a poet versus a prophet. He assumes that prophets were really just poets because of the change in definition of the word over time. He has only picked a few scriptures to try and prove this point and did not address the following scriptures which give us a better description of how the Bible defines prophets, which has nothing to do with poetry.

Ex. {33:11} And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
Amos {3:7} Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Isaiah {22:14} And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts.
Daniel {2:19} Then was the secret revealed unto Daniel in a night vision.
1 Samuel {3:21} And the LORD appeared again in Shiloh: for the LORD revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the LORD.

Another aspect of his argument is that there are those in the Bible called prophets that do not have any prophecies written within the Bible. This assumes that we have all the writings from history. That is not the case. Prophets also tend to focus on telling people they need to repent or they will not make it in to heaven, or similar. Is this not a prophecy itself? Thomas’ definition of a prophet seems to be someone who should only prophecy about specific future events to happen on Earth, which is an inadequate definition.

Thomas also states within this work that even if there were actual prophets, others could not really know the truth of their words because there is no way to confirm the prophets’ words:

There is no possible criterion whereby to judge of the truth of what he tells, for even the morality of it would be no proof of revelation.

Here are a few scriptures which describe how to receive knowledge of God (bold emphasis added), which Thomas has not addressed in his work. The overall theme is through the Spirit and the emotion/feeling of love through which it is stated that the Spirit communicates.

1 Corinthians {2:10}But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
James {1:5} If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

1 Corinthians {2:14} But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them,] because
they are spiritually discerned.

Romans {5:5} And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

Galatians {5:22} But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

1 John {4:8} He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I would ask that anyone who is married to try and explain to their husband or wife “scientifically” how and why they feel the way they do towards them. I doubt it would go over well. Love and emotions in general are an important aspect of our lives and are another element of our capacity for learning and knowledge. It is also the part of us that can be shared universally, unlike the inadequacy of languages.

For the second conclusion mentioned above, I accept the fact that there are contradictions in the Bible and the fact that this is caused from imperfection in translations and other human errors. The assumption from Thomas is that because human languages are imperfect, they can not really contain the word of God. While I admit that there will always be imperfections in any work, there is still enough of a “guide” in the Bible to obtain the meaning and intent of the words. Thomas admits that the word of God exists in something else, which he concludes is all creations. He also states his belief in a conscience:

As for morality, the knowledge of it exists in every man's conscience.

If he then believes that we should seek God’s creation as “God’s word”, then where did “every man’s conscience” come from? Is that not part of God’s creation within us? Are emotions and feelings not part of us as well?

Overall, Thomas Paine has misunderstood the capacities all humans have been given, which are part of God’s creation within us. He is using his limited definition of reason to only include one aspect of reasoning. He admits that the human language is inadequate for a Creator to communicate, yet he uses inadequate definitions of prophets, reason and science to try and prove his points. What he seems to have failed to understand is that we do learn through our scientific advancements and exploration, through our feelings and emotions, and through our physical capacities. All of these are part of our basis for reasoning. The important thing that I have learned is that a balance in these areas is what is needed. That balance is hard to achieve. People can consider something with only “scientific eyes” and miss the intentions that were meant for “emotional/spiritual eyes”. It is foolish to explain “scientifically” the emotions of love. I also understand that people can and do focus on just the emotional or religious aspect and take it too far to where they no longer consider the side of “reason”. In the end, it has been my reasoning that we should use all of our human capacities for learning and knowledge in a balanced way. Thomas should not have intentionally repressed his poetry/emotional side as he did; it would have made him a more “balanced” person and would have given him the ability to perceive the Bible and its words more clearly in the way in which they were meant to be seen. Thomas seems to have confused controlling emotions with repressing emotions, based on this quote:

The natural bent of my mind was to science. I had some turn, and I believe some talent, for poetry; but this I rather repressed than encouraged, as leading too much into the field of imagination.

First off, thank you for reading the Age of Reason and critiquing it. I dabbled in deism for quite some time, but eventually arrived at strong atheism. I'll try to provide some feedback.

Originally Posted by Christopher

My main issues are with Paine’s conclusions that indicated he did not complete a thorough review of the Bible, nor could he really understand it considering the approach he took.

Yes, Paine did not do a thorough review of the Bible. What do you mean that he could not really understand it by the approach that he took? Are you criticizing his critical diatribe of Christianity or his methodology? It seems obvious that you posses a more correct methodology in viewing the Bible. Care to enlighten us and why this is God's chosen methodology to view the Bible?

I also do not consider this post as a complete review of his work (I have more input on his writings, this is just a summary).

Paine can make one loquacious.

While I do understand more about the Deist views, I still disagree that many of the Founding Fathers were Deist. While obviously some were, it is a stretch to include others.

Many were. Jefferson. Allen. Madison. Franklin. Adams. Washington was possibly a closet deist. Even Abraham Lincoln was a deist and held Thomas Paine in high regard. Deism officially left the oval with Jackson only to sprout up again with Lincoln and.....

One problem I have with his conclusions is that there is an assumption that God basically just left us to only study science as God’s “language”, or to not really “find” God at all.

Do you have evidence of studying god by miracles or is the other possibly study of god through nature and materialism?

While I agree that the creations around us are part of the evidence we do have of a creator, I disagree that God intended only this method of “communication” with us. According to Thomas, it would seem only those with a “scientific bent” would be able to actually “communicate” with and/or “know” God.

Hence, The Age of Reason. I'd be happy to entertain the idea that god can "communicate" outside of nature and reason.

For the first conclusion mentioned above, one of his points is regarding the definition of a poet versus a prophet. He assumes that prophets were really just poets because of the change in definition of the word over time. He has only picked a few scriptures to try and prove this point and did not address the following scriptures which give us a better description of how the Bible defines prophets, which has nothing to do with poetry.

But his insights must taken into consideration. Words do get transformed over time. The Bible is written in Old English...almost a different language. Paine, a simple man, wrote an Age of Reason during an era where a complete overhaul of the Bible was probably not capable. What sort of prior research was conducted that he could refer to? Where was this research located that he access to. The point is that Thomas Paine made glaring, poignant, and eye-awakening criticisms of the Bible.

Another aspect of his argument is that there are those in the Bible called prophets that do not have any prophecies written within the Bible. This assumes that we have all the writings from history. That is not the case.

Can you state documented prophecies from the Bible?

Prophets also tend to focus on telling people they need to repent or they will not make it in to heaven, or similar. Is this not a prophecy itself?

No

Thomas’ definition of a prophet seems to be someone who should only prophecy about specific future events to happen on Earth, which is an inadequate definition.

Then provide an adequate definition.

Thomas also states within this work that even if there were actual prophets, others could not really know the truth of their words because there is no way to confirm the prophets’ words:

Can we today confirm prophecies?

I would ask that anyone who is married to try and explain to their husband or wife “scientifically” how and why they feel the way they do towards them.

Lust, attraction, and attachment. In that order.

For the second conclusion mentioned above, I accept the fact that there are contradictions in the Bible and the fact that this is caused from imperfection in translations and other human errors.

Why wouldn't god fix this imperfection and make his presence and will more lucid?

The assumption from Thomas is that because human languages are imperfect, they can not really contain the word of God.

Paine's focus on human language is what led him to Deism: Reason and Nature to find god. Human language cannot be relied upon since it changes over time, has different meaning to different people, suffers from translation, and is not "the reasonable" understanding of god. If god exists, god exist via the language of the natural laws.

If he then believes that we should seek God’s creation as “God’s word”, then where did “every man’s conscience” come from? Is that not part of God’s creation within us? Are emotions and feelings not part of us as well?

Paine would argue that it came from natural laws that god set forward. Then again, Paine lived in a different time and era. Today he would probably be an atheist rather than a theist.

Paine attempted to answer hard question under sever limitations. He did not have access to the internet or other convenient sources. Where did man's consciousness come from? Even today, the internet does not provide sufficient information on this.

Paine attempted to answer this question with reason and nature. He did not rely upon mysticism and myths. Hence, The Age of Reason. Deism looks at natural laws to find a creator of some sort. Unfortunately falls short. The best answer that we have is that "we do not know".

First off, thank you for reading the Age of Reason and critiquing it. I dabbled in deism for quite some time, but eventually arrived at strong atheism. I'll try to provide some feedback.

Thanks for your feedback.

Yes, Paine did not do a thorough review of the Bible. What do you mean that he could not really understand it by the approach that he took? Are you criticizing his critical diatribe of Christianity or his methodology? It seems obvious that you posses a more correct methodology in viewing the Bible. Care to enlighten us and why this is God's chosen methodology to view the Bible?

My criticism of his methodology is that he was attempting to find God only through his “scientific” side. The scriptures clearly state we must find God through the Spirit which communicates through our emotions, in particular love. He repressed this part of himself (his emotional side) which made it impossible for him to find God in the way that was intended.

Many were. Jefferson. Allen. Madison. Franklin. Adams. Washington was possibly a closet deist. Even Abraham Lincoln was a deist and held Thomas Paine in high regard. Deism officially left the oval with Jackson only to sprout up again with Lincoln and.....

I just find it interesting that some have gone to such great lengths to include some of the Founding Fathers (particularly Washington) as Diests, when other times they accept those who claim to be Christian and yet have performed terrible acts that go against Christian teachings. In other words, the definition of a Christian fits in some cases and not others. Again, it is from people’s limited and changing views of definitions. The ones that have professed their beliefs publicly we know, as for anyone else it is just speculation.

Do you have evidence of studying god by miracles or is the other possibly study of god through nature and materialism?

That is the problem; everyone’s personal evidence, including mine, is just that: personal. It can be shared but not “passed on” to anyone else to include as their “evidence”. I am willing to discuss this further and how I have achieved my “evidence” if you are willing to listen openly

Hence, The Age of Reason. I'd be happy to entertain the idea that god can "communicate" outside of nature and reason.

As I mentioned though, nature and reason includes our emotions.

But his insights must taken into consideration. Words do get transformed over time. The Bible is written in Old English...almost a different language. Paine, a simple man, wrote an Age of Reason during an era where a complete overhaul of the Bible was probably not capable. What sort of prior research was conducted that he could refer to? Where was this research located that he access to. The point is that Thomas Paine made glaring, poignant, and eye-awakening criticisms of the Bible.

I agree and did consider his insights. He did not consider many other scriptures that confirmed what was meant by prophets.

Can you state documented prophecies from the Bible?

Of course there are plenty in Isaiah and Revelations. The problem is that these are only prophecies about things that will happen on Earth and can be very difficult to interpret the true meaning. In the end, they are not that necessary for us to “know” if we have a basic knowledge of God

No

I disagree, prophets as they are in the Bible were intended to have first-hand knowledge of God and did not necessarily predict future events on Earth.

Then provide an adequate definition.

My best definition is someone that is an actual witness of God (saw God “face to face”). We know some have been shown future events, however, a witness of God is the most basic definition I have.

Can we today confirm prophecies?

As I’ve stated, we can confirm words of the prophets through the Spirit. I thought I made that clear. Isaiah prophesied of Christ, which we have a good reason to believe he existed.

Lust, attraction, and attachment. In that order.

Did you really explain it like this to your spouse? I thought someone would confuse what I meant by love with “lust”. Love is an emotion that goes beyond what you describe and to me can not really be explained “scientifically”. How does love apply to one’s children according to your explanation?

Why wouldn't god fix this imperfection and make his presence and will more lucid?

God gave us a conscience (don’t confuse that with consciousness), and he gave us our emotions. Both of which are a “universal” method of communication. I think God knew there was not a way to “fix” our imperfect languages. Also, our "witness" of God only comes after our faith.

Paine's focus on human language is what led him to Deism: Reason and Nature to find god. Human language cannot be relied upon since it changes over time, has different meaning to different people, suffers from translation, and is not "the reasonable" understanding of god. If god exists, god exist via the language of the natural laws.

I understand that; I just know that there is much more to our own “nature” than Paine considered. He repressed part of his “nature”.

Paine would argue that it came from natural laws that god set forward. Then again, Paine lived in a different time and era. Today he would probably be an atheist rather than a theist.

Paine attempted to answer hard question under sever limitations. He did not have access to the internet or other convenient sources. Where did man's consciousness come from? Even today, the internet does not provide sufficient information on this.

Paine attempted to answer this question with reason and nature. He did not rely upon mysticism and myths. Hence, The Age of Reason. Deism looks at natural laws to find a creator of some sort. Unfortunately falls short. The best answer that we have is that "we do not know".

I understand the “mysticism and myths” argument. Emotions are not a myth and we still do learn through them. My conscience is not a myth to me either, nor was it to Paine. Do you agree or disagree? My most valued “knowledge” has come through my emotions. It only makes sense that a knowledge of God, which is valued, would come through a similar way. Thanks again for your responses and insight.

Originally Posted by ~V~

First off, thank you for reading the Age of Reason and critiquing it. I dabbled in deism for quite some time, but eventually arrived at strong atheism. I'll try to provide some feedback.

~V~, I just realized you did not respond to my second post, which was supposed to be together with the first post. I think this answers some of the questions you had about my summary. I had to split my original post into two parts because of the there is a limitation on the number of characters per post.

Originally Posted by Christopher

Overall, Thomas Paine has misunderstood the capacities all humans have been given, which are part of God’s creation within us.

You are applying a "leap of faith".

He is using his limited definition of reason to only include one aspect of reasoning. He admits that the human language is inadequate for a Creator to communicate, yet he uses inadequate definitions of prophets, reason and science to try and prove his points.

Paine clearly attacks revelation by reason. What sort of reasoning do you suggest to attack revelation?

What he seems to have failed to understand is that we do learn through our scientific advancements and exploration, through our feelings and emotions, and through our physical capacities.

Feelings and emotions can be motivation for learning, but learning and gaining knowledge is independent of feelings and emotions. One must try and not be biased when making scientific advancements. There is nothing wrong with trying to scientifically explain love.

People can consider something with only “scientific eyes” and miss the intentions that were meant for “emotional/spiritual eyes”.

I am not sure sure if I understand you. First off, I don't believe in the spiritual. Second, I am aware of my emotions (most of the time), but when learning I try to be factual and not emotional. I do not even try incorporate my emotions into learning.

I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to convey.

It is foolish to explain “scientifically” the emotions of love.

No, it is not. It may be "foolish" to scientifically explain your love to your mate since she probably prefers a poetic romanticism over a cold definition of science.

Thomas should not have intentionally repressed his poetry/emotional side as he did;...

I don't think he did. Paine had a knack for writing. His critiques were bitter diatribes that cut to the bone. They were emotionally provoking backed by reason. "Common Sense" helped perpetuate the American Revolution.

...it would have made him a more “balanced” person and would have given him the ability to perceive the Bible and its words more clearly in the way in which they were meant to be seen.

Why don't you enlighten all of humanity on the correct way to perceive the Bible?

Overall, The Age of Reason promoted deism and brought it to the masses since previously deism was only known by the educated elite. Deism, which, Paine proposed is a natural religion. It rejects prophecies, divine intervention, miracles, supernaturalism, and reject holy books as the authoritative word of god. One arrives at deism by reason and not revelation.

Originally Posted by ~V~

You are applying a "leap of faith".

Paine clearly attacks revelation by reason. What sort of reasoning do you suggest to attack revelation?

Feelings and emotions can be motivation for learning, but learning and gaining knowledge is independent of feelings and emotions. One must try and not be biased when making scientific advancements. There is nothing wrong with trying to scientifically explain love.

I am not sure sure if I understand you. First off, I don't believe in the spiritual. Second, I am aware of my emotions (most of the time), but when learning I try to be factual and not emotional. I do not even try incorporate my emotions into learning.

I am not sure if I understand what you are trying to convey.

No, it is not. It may be "foolish" to scientifically explain your love to your mate since she probably prefers a poetic romanticism over a cold definition of science.

I don't think he did. Paine had a knack for writing. His critiques were bitter diatribes that cut to the bone. They were emotionally provoking backed by reason. "Common Sense" helped perpetuate the American Revolution.

Why don't you enlighten all of humanity on the correct way to perceive the Bible?

Overall, The Age of Reason promoted deism and brought it to the masses since previously deism was only known by the educated elite. Deism, which, Paine proposed is a natural religion. It rejects prophecies, divine intervention, miracles, supernaturalism, and reject holy books as the authoritative word of god. One arrives at deism by reason and not revelation.

Let me respond without separating my responses with your points. I think it will make more sense together this way. In a way I am saying you need to apply a “leap of faith”. There is more to it than that, though. What I have been trying to get across is that there are different levels within our human makeup. When I was talking about achieving a “balance”, part of what I meant by this is that we need to match up each level with the appropriate area of knowledge we are seeking. Let me use some simple examples to explain this more. As an engineer, I design structures and I do not let my emotions into this process. I rely on my scientific knowledge of materials and how they react to loading, etc. in order to obtain designs that are adequate and safe and will meet the intended function. Now, on the opposite side there are the personal, individual, emotional decisions. For instance, I did not use my scientific knowledge and reasoning to determine who I should marry. Does this make sense?

Paine attacks revelation according to his scientific reasoning. Please read the scriptures I initially quoted on the topic. They explain how to obtain knowledge as it relates to God and it is not part of our current definition of “scientific reasoning”. It does require a “leap of faith” to ask for an answer through your feelings, which I believe are tied to a spiritual aspect. I understand you do not believe in anything spiritual; I am just trying to convey that at the very least you must see that our emotions are of some value in learning and knowledge. In addition, this “leap of faith” is necessary because it does show to God that you are sincere in seeking knowledge. Now let me clarify about “the correct way to perceive the Bible”. What I meant was that we need to use right level of our human makeup, which is the emotional/spiritual.
Yes, Paine did repress his poetry side (which is part of the emotional level); he admitted this in his work which I quoted.
Overall, I actually enjoyed reading his work, and I did read “Common Sense” as well. I found that we have much in common, with a “bent” for both science and poetry. I respect Paine for what he did and I think he did help to bring back some "sanity" into the religious world.