Happy Birthday Ben

That’s a bit of creationist quotemining.

Did you actually read the citation? Whether or not creationists quotemine it, I’m not a creationist, and it’s a real statement by Franklin. (And in fact such statements are mined in the context of Christian fundamentalists arguing that the U.S. is a “Christian Nation”, not in the context of creationism vs. evolution.) As an atheist, I would just as soon have Franklin be a deist as anyone, but what should distinguish us from creationists is not claiming something is true just because we want it to be true. And you play into the creationist game by suggesting that the question of whether or not Franklin was a deist has any bearing on whether or not he was a scientist, or on the value of his scientific work, or on the validity of evolution or creationism.

but according to his autobiography Franklin quit the Presbyterian church in 1793 and became a deist in the mode of the Enlightenment,retaining only a belief in a God and future life

Well, I never heard before of a deist who believed in an afterlife, but Franklin can possibly be read has having been one. However, he still apparently believed in a God who answers prayers and is active in the world (contrary to the principles of deism) when he did the bulk of his scientific (and political) work.

Why do you assume that I am basing my contention on the tiny bit of evidence immediately at hand?

I made no assumption as to what you base your beliefs on. But if you would hope to affect the beliefs of others you should provide evidence – else you’re just wasting space.

In consideration of the previous point, here’s Franklin’s letter to Thomas Paine about his Age of Reason, from the (politically conservative, not “creationist”) site provided by Wislu Plethora:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resourc[…]esourceID=93

… You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. …

This sounds quite a bit like Leo Strauss, who argued that the truth should be restricted to ruling elites. Which just goes to show that even our great icons like Ben Franklin were flawed human beings.

Deist or not, he did indeed help write “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”.

Franklin wrote at length in favor or freedom of the press, but if he did “help write” the establishment clause (did he steady Jefferson’s hand as he wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, or Madison’s as he wrote Memorial and Remonstrance?), it’s not something he’s known for.

That’s all that counts.

Not to those interested in rational inquiry even if the results don’t match one’s preferences.

You can ask Ben’s ghost to be sure, but that request for a prayer Franklin made at the Philadelphia convention was one of the best and most useful practical jokes in history.

So you say, but your interpretation of the facts follows from assuming that, the facts do not imply it. When all the facts about Franklin are considered, your interpretation is very unlikely.

So Franklin, the world’s most famous non-Christian, made a motion to pray.

Major strawman. Of course Franklin was not a Christian. But he did believe in God, and in “God’s Providence”. That you babble about him not being a Christian when no one said otherwise, but when I have already posted his essay on providence that displays his concept of an active God, a God that responds to prayer, shows how wedded you are to an idée fixe. When Franklin wrote “He sometimes interferes by his particular Providence and sets aside the Effects which would otherwise have been produced by any of the Above Causes”, he wasn’t joking or disarming political factions.

In Franklin’s time, there WERE no naturalistic explanations for many of the phenomena he would have observed. There is no way to know if his religiosity corresponded to what we now think of as “deism”, or to something else entirely. And I don’t think it matters much. Franklin is an emblem of the scientific spirit. His religious beliefs (whatever they were) don’t affect that.

I quite agree. But some people are trying to rewrite history out of the apparent belief that there’s something inconsistent between Franklin being an emblem of the scientific spirit and his belief in an active God meddling in worldly affairs, answering prayers, and being worthy of worship, praise, etc.

Also from that page, which is part of a pro church/state separation site:

Mr. HAMILTON & several others expressed their apprehensions that however proper such a resolution might have been at the beginning of the convention, it might at this late day, bring on it some disagreeable animadversions & lead the public to believe that the embarrassments and dissensions within the Convention, had suggested this measure.

Apparently Mr. Durrell is part of this “public”, and goes beyond that to present this belief as if it were historical fact, something that has no support in the historical record (as the page says, “The documentation of the Convention states only that Dr. Franklin proposed daily prayer led by a clergyman and that the Convention adjourned without passing the motion”).

One more:

Somebody immediately moved to adjourn for the day. I’ve seen two different reports on how the motion was handled the next day — one says it failed for lack of a second, the other that it was voted down, both agreeing that the delegates thought prayer unnecessary, and too expensive to hire a preacher (a made-up excuse, clearly). In any case, no prayers were said at the Constitutional Convention.

I find it bizarre that someone would write about “reports” they have “seen” when I already posted a link that gives the report of the actual events as recorded by James Madison. Not only was the motion immediately seconded (but was never voted on) before Franklin has even finished speaking, but the report also indicates:

Mr. WILLIAMSON, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.

No one at the convention challenged this claim, nor did Madison when he reported it. Mr. Darrell’s claim that this was “a made-up excuse, clearly” is clearly made up, as is most else that he writes above, if not by him then by the “reports” he has “seen”.

“Your misinterpreting Franklin’s motives makes the point: You don’t know the purposes of actual, documented intelligent designers, and you fail to recognize design when it occurs, especially when the design contradicts one of your cherished myths.”

Whoa, are you assuming that I’m a proponent of intelligent design? If so, you’re more whacked than I supposed. Perhaps you’ve confused me with “Ghost of Paley”, and assumed, by the mere fact that “ghost” appears in both names, that we are the same person or hold the same views – yet, our views about ID are diametrically opposed. Perhaps you missed where I wrote that I’m an atheist, as well as my other posts on (against) ID. You’ve certainly missed a lot.

let’s get to actually primary sources.

I offered the report of the events as written by James Madison, as well as an extensive analysis of those events by an atheist critic (which was nonetheless labeled by one poster as “a bit of creationist quotemining”) of “The Franklin Prayer Myth” – the myth that Franklin’s speech was instrumental in bringing about agreement and closure on the U.S. Constitution – with direct quotes from Franklin and others. Ed has made claims of what Franklin wrote in his autobiography, as well as the names of various historians, and his interpretation of what they say – but they are just his claims, not evidence. Notably, his statement that “Somebody immediately moved to adjourn for the day. I’ve seen two different reports on how the motion was handled the next day — one says it failed for lack of a second, the other that it was voted down” is historically incorrect, as it contradicts Madison’s report of the events, which has Franklin’s motion being immediately seconded, and the motion never being voted on. So I don’t have much faith in his take on other issues. Nonetheless, he may be right that when “Mr. WILLIAMSON, observed that the true cause of the omission could not be mistaken. The Convention had no funds.” he was making up an excuse – but it certainly isn’t “clearly” the case – the “excuse” was offered up in response to the comment by “Mr. SHERMAN & others” that “the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission”. But it’s a totally trivial point whether this was a real reason why they hadn’t conducted prayers or a “made up” excuse. What isn’t trivial is that, whether Ed’s interpretation of Franklin’s speech calling for prayer as a “practical joke” is correct or not, Franklin wasn’t joking about the content, which was about “God’s Providence”, his involvement in the affairs of the world, and his receptivity to prayer, a subject on which Franklin wrote before and after (I provided direct quotes from Franklin above; see especially #73115, which was written after the Constitution was signed, and clearly reflects Franklin’s views of the matter, regardless of what Ed may have, or thinks he may have, read in Franklin’s autobiography). As I have noted, Franklin was not a deist in the sense we mean today – someone who thinks that God created the world and its mechanisms, set it in motion, and then let it run inexorably according to those mechanisms, without further involvement – Franklin believed something quite different. Which does not in any way imply that Franklin was a Christian or that I was saying that he was – which seems to have been Ed’s reading based solely on an ad hominem assumption from his misreading of my moniker (Popper = Paley??). But Franklin did voice an appreciation of Christian morality as he understood it, claimed to have been badly treated by people lacking that morality, and suggested therefore that people should be schooled in that morality. As is well known, Thomas Jefferson was also a “Christian” in a similar sense, going so far as to author “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels”, aka “The Jefferson Bible”. And please note that, just because I report these historical facts does not mean that I share Franklin’s or Jefferson’s views on these matters – in fact, I don’t.

hard reading it as one big block

Sorry. I realized that at the time, and added the italics to try to make it a little easier to read.

P.S. When I wrote

the comment by “Mr. SHERMAN & others” that “the past omission of a duty could not justify a further omission”

that should have been “Docr F. Mr. SHERMAN & others”. I.e., according to Madison’s record, Franklin himself was among those who argued that, just because they hadn’t prayed earlier, that was no reason why they shouldn’t do so in the future. It’s also worth noting from the record that another motion, “that a sermon be preached at the request of the convention on 4^th of July, the anniversary of Independence; & thenceforward prayers be used in yr Convention every morning” was also offered, and seconded by Franklin. That seems odd if Franklin, who by his own writings believed in the efficacy of prayer, had not actually intended there to be any.

It’s the danger of claiming to know when one does not know, even if one does have hopes.

Franklin’s purpose was accomplished without prayer. He intended to, and succeeded, in tweaking the Christians at the convention. Typical of historical revisionists to try to cover up the fact that sometimes even Christians must be called to act like Christians.

If it were some creationist or IDiot expressing such confused hypocrisy, it might be funny, as that’s so common, but in this case it’s quite sad. Just today I received a note about Pete McCloskey’s statement of candidacy to run in the Republican primary against Richard Pombo (“one of the thirteen most corrupt Members of Congress”). McCloskey’s a good guy, who says “We are a Nation under God, but with a constitutional freedom of religion and from religion. Presbyterian views on Catholics, Buddhists, Muslims or even Episcopalians.” But he buys into the same mythology – a meme pushed mostly by conservative Christians – about Ben Franklin that you do (at least you know that the motion didn’t actually pass): “Most of all I remember that Ben Franklin was 82 when he made the powerful speech at the 1787 Convention which led to adoption of the Constitution.” Only Franklin’s speech did no such thing, as both McCloskey and you would know if you had read the debunking link I provided (McCloskey has an excuse, since he doesn’t even know it exists).:

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/franklin.htm

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was in dire straits and in danger of dissolution when Benjamin Franklin made an appeal and a motion for public prayer within the Convention in an eloquent speech on the floor of the Convention on June 28, 1787. David Barton, in his book The Myth of Separation, assumes that the motion passed as a matter of course and asserts:

Franklin’s admonition-and the delegates’ response to it-had been the turning point not only for the Convention, but also for the future of the nation. While neglecting God, their efforts had been characterized by frustration and selfishness. With their repentance came a desire to begin each morning of official government business with prayer … After returning God to their deliberations, were they effective in their efforts to frame a new government?

However, as James Madison’s notes on the Constitutional Convention demonstrate, dissension and debate broke out over Franklin’s motion!

Alexander Hamilton and others expressed misgivings that the motion might bring on “some disagreeable animadversions” (heated disputes) and cause the public to believe that “embarrassments and dissension” within the Convention had brought on the motion. One of the delegates pointed out that the Convention had no funds with which to pay a minister to offer prayers, even though, if David Barton is correct, local clergymen had volunteered to offer such prayers at no charge. Edmund Randolph proposed an alternative motion that a special service be held on the Fourth of July at which time prayers would be offered. Franklin seconded Randolph’s motion recognizing, as he later acknowledged, that the Convention “except for three or four persons, thought prayers unnecessary.” James Madison recorded in his notes that “after several unsuccessful attempts for silently postponing the matter by adjourning, the adjournment at length carried, without any vote on the matter.”

On July 2, following the purported (but non-actual) institution of official, public prayer in the Convention’s proceedings that supposedly took place on June 29, the dissension within the Convention was still as heated and the division as deep as ever. Roger Sherman declared that “we are now at a full stop” and recommended that a committee work on the resolution of the issue of Senate representation. On the same day Gouverneur Morris, one of the most influential delegates to the Convention, stated, “Reason tells us we are but men, and we are not to expect any particular interference from heaven in our favor.” (What a revealing statement this is, in contrast to the sentiments of Franklin and the assertions of David Barton!)

The dissension and impasse within the Convention continued long after the Convention rejected Franklin’s call to prayer and after the observance of the Fourth of July religious service. On July 10 George Washington wrote to Alexander Hamilton:

Our councils are now, it is possible, at a worse train than ever; you will find but little ground on which the hope of a good establishment can be formed. In a word, I almost despair of seeing a favorable issue to the proceedings of the Convention.

On July 15 Caleb Strong summarized the Convention’s situation: “The Convention has been much divided in opinion .… It is agreed on all hands [that] Congress [is] nearly at an end. If no accommodation takes place, the union itself must soon be dissolved.” Not until July 16 was the report of the committee, the so-called “Great Compromise,” adopted, and only then was the impasse within the Convention broken -not on June 28 with Franklin’s call and the Convention’s nonexistent return to prayer and to God.

Franklin’s “tweaking” had no discernable effect; if he “succeeded”, it is in some wholy unfalsifiable sense. And as for the notion that Franklin thought it necessary to call upon Christians to act like Christians, perhaps this comment from Benjamin Rush is relevant (in any case, it’s a fitting tribute to Franklin for this thread):

[Enable javascript to see this email address.](fr00341" rel="nofollow external ">http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query[…]@lit(fr00341)):

Dr Franklin exhibits daily a spectacle of transcendent benevolence by attending the Convention punctually, and even taking part in its business and deliberations. He says “it is the most august and respectable Assembly he ever was in in his life, and adds, that he thinks they will soon finish their business, as there are no prejudices to oppose, nor errors to refute in any of the body.” Mr. Dickinson (who is one of them) informs me that they are all united in their objects, and he expects they will be equally united in the means of attaining them. Mr. Adams’s book has diffused such excellent principles among us, that there is little doubt of our adopting a vigorous and compounded federal legislature. Our illustrious minister in this gift to his country has done us more service than if he had obtained alliances for us with all the nations of Europe.

Forgive me for being blunt, but … so f’ing what? What difference do Franklin’s religious opinions make to anyone but Franklin?

I already made that point, Lenny:

you play into the creationist game by suggesting that the question of whether or not Franklin was a deist has any bearing on whether or not he was a scientist, or on the value of his scientific work, or on the validity of evolution or creationism.

So they only make a difference, or should only make a difference, to those who care about a historical dispute as to what those views were. If, as is apparent, you don’t care about that dispute, you can simply f’ing bugger off and not bother to read these comments.