Reading: Age of Reason

Share/Save/Bookmark

Jahanshah Javid
by Jahanshah Javid
18-May-2008
 

Tom Paine is one of the people I most admire. We need someone like him. I've mentioned somewhere here before that one of my dreams is to one day get an original copy of his masterpiece, Commlon Sense. I was watching TV and heard a character mentioning Age of Reason. That's not too bad either :o)

Here's an excerpt:

Age of Reason
Part First, Section 1

IT has been my intention, for several years past, to publish my thoughts upon religion. I am well aware of the difficulties that attend the subject, and from that consideration, had reserved it to a more advanced period of life. I intended it to be the last offering I should make to my fellow-citizens of all nations, and that at a time when the purity of the motive that induced me to it, could not admit of a question, even by those who might disapprove the work.

The circumstance that has now taken place in France of the total abolition of the whole national order of priesthood, and of everything appertaining to compulsive systems of religion, and compulsive articles of faith, has not only precipitated my intention, but rendered a work of this kind exceedingly necessary, lest in the general wreck of superstition, of false systems of government, and false theology, we lose sight of morality, of humanity, and of the theology that is true.

As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind, as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the trade of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade, he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive any thing more destructive to morality than this?

Soon after I had published the pamphlet Common Sense, in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion. The adulterous connection of church and state, wherever it had taken place, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, had so effectually prohibited by pains and penalties, every discussion upon established creeds, and upon first principles of religion, that until the system of government should be changed, those subjects could not be brought fairly and openly before the world; but that whenever this should be done, a revolution in the system of religion would follow. Human inventions and priestcraft would be detected; and man would return to the pure, unmixed and unadulterated belief of one God, and no more.

Every national church or religion has established itself by pretending some special mission from God, communicated to certain individuals. The Jews have their Moses; the Christians their Jesus Christ, their apostles and saints; and the Turks their Mahomet, as if the way to God was not open to every man alike.

Each of those churches show certain books, which they call revelation, or the word of God. The Jews say, that their word of God was given by God to Moses, face to face; the Christians say, that their word of God came by divine inspiration: and the Turks say, that their word of God (the Koran) was brought by an angel from Heaven. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.

As it is necessary to affix right ideas to words, I will, before I proceed further into the subject, offer some other observations on the word revelation. Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.

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.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

When Moses told the children of Israel that he received the two tables of the commandments from the hands of God, they were not obliged to believe him, because they had no other authority for it than his telling them so; and I have no other authority for it than some historian telling me so. The commandments carry no internal evidence of divinity with them; they contain some good moral precepts, such as any man qualified to be a lawgiver, or a legislator, could produce himself, without having recourse to supernatural intervention>>>

Share/Save/Bookmark

Recently by Jahanshah JavidCommentsDate
Hooman Samani: The Kissinger
4
Aug 31, 2012
Eric Bakhtiari: San Francisco 49er
6
Aug 26, 2012
You can help
16
Aug 23, 2012
more from Jahanshah Javid
 
default

This writers logic is

by Anonymoushc;c;cl; (not verified) on

This writers logic is simplistic and his view of revelation as a message is only scratching the surface of the ice. I don't know where he gets his definition
of revelation but since the whole premise of his logic is built on revelation as a simple conveing of a message his idea in totality is a fallacy.
Revelation is a portal to a much greater world and the message is a mere instruction of arriving at that portal. His is simply a child's interpretation of what he can conceive of revelation in his limited mind. Not to mention that the burdon of his perplexity and confusion has even further limited his capacity to conceive something that is far out of the reach of his desire.
despite all, if that is what he gets from religion then be it. Not everyone is guaranteed without their own volition.
Dont get to excited he says nothing except that he is tired of the old.


Fred

آرامش دوستدار

Fred


You might want to check out Aramesh Doostdar, to my mind he is cut from the same cloth as Paine.  Although he is not as easy a read as Paine, but his old school liberal logical approach to reasoning is quite similar to him.


Troneg

Yes but if somebody hear.

by Troneg on

As he says, In France, there  are many people like him. It started by Voltaire and nowdays many people here are proude to say they are "anti-clerical" meaning they are cons church and Pope.

Unfortunatley having only one person like that doesn't resolve our problem if our people don't want hear him. in the past we had people like that.

I think Sadegh Hedayt told that : I don't beleive in a God who could undrestant our prayer ONLY in Arabe !  or Khayam who say : If God knows everything before, He knew that I'll do some wrong doings, So if I dont do them his science become false !

Unfortunatly our people dont read our smart people.


default

What a coincidence?!

by Majid B. (not verified) on

JJ,

Amazingly I read this piece last week for the first time. He is great. He is a student of David Hume on these issues. Ofcourse he would be better off to let go of the GOD too! :-)

Here is a link to age of reason on line.
//ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/paine/thomas/p147a...

May be the book you are looking for is there too.

best,
MB


samsam1111

Absolutly...a fresh air and common sense

by samsam1111 on

I personaly believe in the Almighty being ...As a matter of fact Irish,celts,persians,indians all Believe in this diety with a common corrupted form of the indoeuropean word of Rih(Celtic),Ahura,,,,,,etc

most of us during teenage years were pretty namazkhoon in one way or other...Later on when I saw the ridiculous divisive & tribalism of religion that has lost it,s original purpose , I decided to build my own private channel with My god without the baggage of religion and hadith....You can call me A private Believer of God almighty.


Ali P.

Straight there...

by Ali P. on

It's Sunday!!

And it's cloudy where I am. One hell of a day to read Tom Paine's views on religion!

We do need someone like him.

:-)

Ali P.


default

Einstein's notes related to your topic

by Anonym7 (not verified) on

JJ, I am sure you have seen this but, since it is very recent I thought to mention the linl:
//www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355323,00.html

I particularly like this one that is attributed to him:
Brooke said Einstein believed that "there is some kind of intelligence working its way through nature. But it is certainly not a conventional Christian or Judaic religious view."

--best regards