Benjamin Franklin lecture by Gary Wood

I welcome you all again to one of our Friday talks. And it's kind of sad that this is the the last one for the Benjamin Franklin and the Redoubtable Dons that we've all really enjoyed so much.

And tonight, although we do have the exhibit here, I think you're all aware the exhibit is actually here until December fifth. And to this afternoon, I'm very pleased to introduce Doctor Gary

Wood, who is the speaker, as I mentioned, for our last presentation. Doctor Wood is an associate professor of English here at Towson. He has taught a wide variety of courses over his tenure at

Towson University, including teaching in and being one of the founding faculty of the English Department's Master in Professional Writing. Trained in American literature and in the study of religion and

literature, Dr. Wood has devoted most of his scholarship to the study of religious writers, both creative writers, novelists, short story writers, and poets and writers of sermonic literature and

popular Christian literature, such as the best selling book of Reverend Rick Warren. Doctor Wood's topic for today is Benjamin Franklin and Religion. Can I give you some water?

Maybe? I'm trying to think what I did with the paper itself. I think I left it back here. If I could just go back and get it.

Wait a minute. I've got my stuff here. There we go. OK, well I want to thank you all for coming and making religion a

recognized area to look at. And Jack was just saying to me that, well, Walt showed that Franklin was no philosopher, and George showed he was no satirist.

Now, is he truly a person who has any qualifications to be looked at for religion? Well, the particular time we're looking at, of course, was, particularly because, remember, Franklin was born in Boston, and

his father had actually surrendered his trade, which, he was a dyer of women's clothing, not something in great demand in America. He had surrendered his trade to protect his religion.

In other words, he emigrated over to Boston. And so it was an extremely pious family. And Josiah, Franklin's father, insisted that Franklin attend church, which he did dutifully when he was young.

And so that, in some ways, to look at Franklin, it might be good to look at it developmentally. I mean, Franklin is someone who grows through his experiences. And the book that I was going to use, kind of as, let's say

the main source of my ideas, is this book Benjamin Franklin and his Gods. By Kerry S. Walters. I mean, I really apologize to Pat for not giving her the title

to my presentation. The honest truth is that I tried to devise a nice compact title, but one eluded me. Eventually I decided to call the presentation Benjamin Franklin's

Religion, The Faith of a Deist. But as I thought about it, I scratched the word deist and substituted polytheist. You know, Alfred Owen Aldridge, a prominent Franklin scholar,

calls him a a polytheist. And we'll look at an article that suggests that maybe he may have been a polytheist. But of course, since Doctor Aldridge is at College Park, I'm

not going to take his word for it. So. So I scratched polytheist and put in atheist. The Abbe Flammarin, a French contemporary of Franklin,

maintained that Franklin had no religion at all. None at all is the way he puts it. But as I said, Franklin was born and raised in the Presbyterian Church, the same one that, by the way, I was raised in.

So again, I was dissatisfied. So I substituted subliminal Christian, OK, but although Franklin eventually later in his life expresses more sympathy to Christianity, I began to doubt that characterizing him as a

good Presbyterian was too extreme. Then I did what a modern scholar would do whenever desperate for a descriptive term, I substituted postmodern. And who am I to say that the term is not a perfect fit?

Because after all, postmoderns really admit nothing can be objective, only subjective. Well. So finally, in despair, this is the title I decided on.

See what... I'll try it out on you. Benjamin Franklin's Religion, Atheistic, Polytheistic, Deistic, Christian, Postmodern.

Now, this title might not satisfy you, but it would satisfy Carl Van Doren, who commented to the effect that the more you look at Franklin, the more complex his views become, and the areas of interest mushroom, until... I'm mixing the metaphors here.

He didn't. I'm not giving him the blame for this. The trees end up blocking your view of the forest. Big mushroom trees.

So it began to appear to me that Franklin's religious views probably would be, well, were they important is the question. And his accomplishments in other areas are remarkable. A successful businessman who could retire at 42, a civic

leader, an inventor, a scientist, a politician and a statesman-diplomat. And perhaps his religion is as subtle as his relations with the French court during his time as minister plenipotentiary for our

country. So such complexity and subtlety certainly has to have been beyond the understanding of some American leaders. For example, John Adams couldn't

make anything of Franklin, he regarded him as alternately conceited, selfish, indulgent, untruthful, generally untrustworthy. In fact, Adams was certain that Franklin had abandoned his

country's interest and been seduced by the glamorous French lifestyle. Later, he was just as sure that Franklin had betrayed American interests to bribes from the English court.

Well, of course, neither of these suspicions were true. One truth does emerge, however. Thank God Adams was not our sole representative to the French court.

Vergennes came to refuse to speak with him. Well, so, many difficulties beset the student of Franklin's religion, not merely because of the complexity of the subject, but the pursuit of this topic at this time in in American

history. I can't remembering an older- can't help remembering an older colleague I had many years ago when I taught high school English at one of Pittsburgh's more upscale communities.

And Frank, my older fellow English teacher, remarked to me one day, what did I think of Shakespeare's atheism? Well, I never regarded myself as a Shakespeare scholar, although I did,

I was lucky enough to take a a seminar with the the aged but still eminent Allardyce Nicholl. But at any rate, I replied, I never saw any evidence that Shakespeare was an atheist, particularly because we know him

completely through his plays, which are fictions, are fictional creations of historical situations. So my friend shot back, Look, you'll agree that Shakespeare was a genius, right?

Well, yeah. OK, OK. Well, sneered Frank, any thinking man knows there's no God.

Well, OK, I must say in the more than 30 years that have passed since Frank enlightened me, never a thinking man myself, Frank has passed on to his eternal reward and now surely knows whether or not there is a God.

And I have this satisfaction that at least two geniuses know there was no God, Shakespeare and Frank. Well, what can we say about Franklin's religion? Well, he reveals it at various times through various documents.

But if you think of him as developing, and this is what Doctor Walters suggests, but Franklin, late in his life, wrote to President Ezra Styles of Yale, replying to a letter from Styles asking him to sit

for a portrait being hung in the Yale library. And wouldn't you know, of course Styles couldn't resist asking him what he believed, long time minister that Styles was.

Franklin's reply may seem to be his final statement, sort of like Melville's last observation on life in the posthumous novelette Billy Budd. So why don't I just read you a little of it and see what you

think. He says, let's see, here it is, after talking a bit about the portrait, then who might do the painting, he says, you desire to know

something of my religion. It is the first time I've been questioned upon it. I can barely believe that. But I cannot take your curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a

few words to gratify it. Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the universe, that He governs it by His providence, that He ought to be worshipped, that the most

acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children, that the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life, respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental principles of all

sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of morals and His religion, as he

left them to us, the best in the world - the best the world has ever seen or likely to see. But I apprehend it has various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some

doubts as to his divinity, though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the truth with less trouble.

I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as it probably has, of making his doctrine more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss by distinguishing

the unbelievers in his government of the world with any particular marks of his displeasure. Well, and then he ends. I might have... Just says, I confide that you will not expose me to

criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I've ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments without reflecting on them

for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my goodwill in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship, and as I've never opposed any of

their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all. Well, it looks like a statement of classic deism, really, from what he's saying there.

But that's not the only thing he wrote. And Walters is talking about how, what he does, he takes the writing of James Fowler. I don't know if you have read anything about Fowler, but

Fowler has a book, has several books on this. He's really a religious psychologist and he has one book called Stages of Faith in which he looks at, he studied a good number of people to see, how does faith develop.

So the way he talks about it, he has a schema that has five stages. And this schema follows the individual from his complete faith in his parents' religious view in early childhood, which

would be the first stage, through adolescent rebellion, which would be the second stage, through the wholehearted adoption of a religious view completely opposed to what he was raised with, which would be the third view, through

disillusionment with the new religion, a fourth view, fourth stage, to a final stage of reconciliation. And so what Walters does is try to follow Franklin's career as a religious person.

And there are several documents that are quite interesting. You know, Franklin ended in England after he was tricked by Governor Heath and found that he had to earn a living, but didn't find that to be too hard because he was already a skilled

printer. So he began to work for one of the the better printing houses in London, Samuel Palmer's printing shop. And one of the assignments that he got while he was printing...

Now he was 19 years of age at this time, OK, And he got the assignment to print the book. See if I can find it. William Wollaston's best selling book called The Religion of Nature.

Wollaston, who was a modern Christian, was willing to make some compromises with the Enlightenment, or what they called at the time, the new learning. He readily granted that reason focusing on nature could serve

as a valid supplement to biblical revelation. And you might say, this is my way of summarizing it, not Walter's, but suffering what Freud might call a raging case of transference to his pious father in particular and

Calvinism in general, Franklin wrote his own rebuttal to Wollaston, apparently setting it in type as he wrote, Franklin entitled the brief treatise A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure

and Pain, and he printed about 100 copies of the dissertation and distributed them to friends and acquaintances. Samuel Palmer was shocked and tried to talk reason into Franklin, but the coffee shop religious radicals like Bernard

de Mandeville liked Franklin's thesis, and for a time it was a current topic of discussion. In fact, Mandeville promised to introduce Franklin to the great sage of deism, Sir Isaac Newton.

But the the the meeting never happened. So let me tell you a little bit about this dissertation. Franklin repudiates it later, not too long after he wrote it, as a matter of fact.

But if I read you just a summary to it, you can see what kinds of things it contains. It says... It's in two parts, and I'll tell you about that in a second.

I shall here subjoin a short recapitulation of the whole, that it may with all its parts be comprehended at one view. One, it is supposed that God, the maker and governor of the universe, is infinitely wise, good, and powerful.

Two, in consequence of his infinite wisdom and goodness, it is asserted that whatever he doth must be infinitely wise and good. Three, unless He be interrupted, and His measure is broken by

some other being, which is impossible, because he is Almighty. Four, in consequence of His infinite power, it is asserted that nothing can exist or be done in the universe which is not

agreeable to His will. And therefore good. Number five, evil is hereby excluded with all merit and demerit, and likewise all preference in the esteem of God of one part of the creation or another.

So this is the... And of course, along with this, he says, goes free will, because if God has planned everything and it's good, what do we need free will for? You know, it's just unnecessary.

It suffers from Occam's razor. The second part he says, Now our common notion of justice will tell us, that if all created things are equally esteemed by the Creator, they ought to be equally used by Him, and that

they are thereby equally used, we might embrace for truth upon the credit and as the true consequence of the foregoing argument. Nevertheless, we proceed to confirm it by showing how they

are equally used, and that in the manner - the following manner. One, a creature, when endued with life or consciousness, is made capable of uneasiness or pain. Number two, This pain produces desire to be freed from it in exact proportion to itself. Number three, the

accomplishment of this desire produces an equal pleasure. Number four, pleasure is consequently equal to pain. From these propositions it is observed that every creature hath as much pleasure as pain, number two that life is not preferable to

insensibility, for pleasure and pain destroy one another. That being which has ten degrees of pain subtracted from ten of pleasure has nothing remaining. and is upon an equality with that being which is insensible of

both. As the first part proves that all things must be equally used by the Creator because equally esteemed, so the second part demonstrates that they are equally esteemed because equally

used. Since every action is the effect of self uneasiness, the distinction of virtue advice is excluded and Proposition 8, Section 1 again is demonstrated.

And then, number five, no state of life can be happier than the present, because pleasure and pain are inseparable. Thus, both parts of this argument agree with and confirm one another, and the demonstration is reciprocal.

What he's really... Well, let me read the last part because he has a neat statement there. Thus both parts of the argument agree with and confirm

one another, and the demonstration is reciprocal. I'm sensible that the doctrine here advanced, if it were to be published, would meet with but an indifferent reception. That wasn't true.

Mankind naturally and generally love to be flattered. Whatever soothes our pride intends to exalt our species above the rest of the creation, we are pleased with, and easily believe,

when ungrateful truth shall be with the utmost indignation rejected. What? Bring ourselves down to the equality with the beast of the

field, with the meanest part of the creation? Tis insufferable but to use a piece of common sense, our geese are but geese, though we may think them swans. And truth will be truth, though it sometimes proves mortifying

and distasteful. Well, it is really deism taken to its ultimate end, where you have a God who's created an absolutely perfect

world, by the definition of God, and human beings have no free will because everything is perfect. And that's the nature of God. There's no reason for any kind of free will.

There's no reason for any kind of objection to the way things are. The second part, of course, sounds a little like Freud in the sense that we have our ego and then we have the id, which

is constantly at us, and then we have the superego that's constantly trying to control the these forces. But what he's saying here is that in a sense, nothing that we consider moral is really important.

And top it all off, he says that there is no eternity because even if our experiences have, as in the case of suffering people, more pain than they have of pleasure, the pleasure of death is such that it wipes out all of that pain and we lapse into a

kind of unconscious sleep. So that it sounds a little like a not very pleasant Buddhism, you know, that we give up all desire, but you know, in this case we don't have the ability or good luck to give up

the desire. It kind of gives us up, but then we end in a state of, well, it doesn't say it's union with God, but a state like like sleep. Well, the problem with the dissertation and certainly

Franklin's view of the deity is not that Franklin is merely a materialist, as some call him, but his practicality. So it's simply put, if God truly has the attributes claimed by theologians for him, Franklin merely carries the

implications of these attributes uncompromisingly to their logical conclusion. So he eventually began to realize that maybe this was not such a great religious view after all.

And what Walters is saying is that that it's a diametrical reaction to the Calvinism that he knew before. And it is just as unsatisfying, so that Franklin is left still disturbed, uncertain about what the meaning of life is, and

seeking some kind of answer. So a few years later, he wrote this in 1722. In 1728, he wrote another piece of literature about religion and that goes by the the title Articles of Belief and Acts of

Religion. It's in his works. It's in the miscellaneous section, part three. And let me give you an idea of these principles.

He says, I believe there's one supreme, most perfect being, author and father of the gods themselves. Right away, "the gods," all right. That's why Aldrich says, well, he's a polytheist.

Although for one to swap Christianity for deism and then deism for polytheism is quite remarkable. He goes on. For I believe that man is not the most perfect man, but one,

but rather that there are many degrees of being superior to him. Also, when I stretch my imagination through and beyond our system of planets, beyond the visible fixed stars and the

cells into that space that is every way infinite and conceive it filled with Suns like ours, each with a chorus of worlds forever moving around him, then this little bell on which we move seems even in my narrow imagination to be almost

nothing, and myself less than nothing, and of no sort of consequence. When I think thus, I imagine a great vanity in me to suppose that the supremely perfect God does in the least regard such an

inconsiderable nothing as man, more especially since it is impossible for me to have any clear idea of that which is infinite and incomprehensible. I cannot conceive otherwise than that the infinite Father expects

or requires no worship or praise for him, but that he is infinitely above it. And, well, I'll read you a few of these things. But since there is in all men, something like a natural

principle, all right, e's saying it's a natural principle to worship, which inclines them to devotion, or the worship of some unseen power, therefore, since men are endued with reason superior to all

other animals that we are in our world acquainted with, therefore I think it seems required of me and my duty as a man to pay divine regards to something. I conceive then, that the Infinite has created many beings

or gods vastly superior to man, who could better conceive his perfections than we, and return him a more rational and glorious praise, as among men the praise of the ignorant or children is not regarded by the ingenious painter or architect, who is

rather honoured and pleased with the approbation of wise men and artists. It may be these created gods are immortal, or it may be that after many ages they are changed, and others supply their

places. Howbeit I conceive that each of these is exceeding wise and good, and very powerful, and that each has made for himself one glorious sun, attended with a beautiful and admirable system

of planets, and that particular wise and good God, who is the author and owner of our system, that I propose for the object of my praise and adoration. For I conceive that He has in Himself some of those passions

He has planted to us, and that since He has given us reason whereby we are capable of observing His wisdom in the creation, He is not above caring for us, being pleased with our praise, and offended when we slight Him or neglect His glory.

I can see for many reasons that He is a good being, and as I should be happy to have so wise, good, and powerful of being my friend, let me consider in what manner I shall make myself most acceptable to Him.

Next to the praise resulting from and due to His wisdom, I believe He is pleased and delights in the happiness of those He has created. And since without virtue a man can have no happiness in this

world, I firmly believe he delights to see me virtuous because he is pleased when he sees me happy. And since he's created many things which seem purely designed for the delighted man, I believe he's not offended when

he sees his children solace themselves in any manner of pleasant exercise and innocent delights. And I think no pleasure innocent that is to men hurtful. I know Him, therefore for His goodness.

I adore Him for His wisdom. Let me not fail then to praise my God continually, for it is His due, and it is all that I can return for His many favors and great goodness to me.

And let me resolve to be virtuous, that I may be happy, that I may please Him who is delighted to see me happy. Amen. And then what he does after that is he has a religious service,

one that he says that that he followed rather religiously, so to speak. And he starts out, I'll just let you see a little of this with a prelude in which he says, being mindful that I

addressed the deity, my soul ought to be calm and serene, free from passion and perturbation, and otherwise elevated with rational joy and pleasure. I ought to use a countenance that expresses a filial respect,

mixed with the kind of smiling that signifies inward joy and satisfaction and admiration. O wise God, my good Father, Thou beholdest the sincerity of my heart and of my devotion.

Grant me a continuance of thy favor. One. O Creator, O Father, I believe that thou art good and that Thou art pleased with the pleasure of Thy children.

Praise be thy name forever. By thy power hast thou made the glorious sun. With his attending worlds and the energy of Thy mighty will they first received their prodigious motion, and by Thy

wisdom hast Thou prescribed the wondrous laws by which they move. Praise be thy name forever. By thy wisdom hast thou formed all things, thou hast created man,

bestowing life and reason, and placed him in dignity superior to any other earthly creature. Praise be Thy name forever. Thy wisdom, Thy power and Thy goodness are everywhere cleanly

seen, in the air, in the water, in the heavens, and on the earth. Thou providest for the various winged fowl and the innumerable inhabitants of the water.

Thou givest cold and heat, rain and sunshine in their season, and to the fruits of the earth their increase. Praised be Thy name forever. Number five. Thou abhorest in thy creatures treachery and deceit, malice, revenge, intemperance,

and every other hurtful vice. But thou art the lover of justice and sincerity, of friendship and benevolence and every virtue. Thou art my friend, my father, and my

benefactor. Praised be thy name, O God, forever. And he says that after this prelude it would be not improper that a reading should be taken from some book, such as Ray's

Wisdom of God in the Creation, or Blackmore on the Creation, in the Archbishop of Canterbury's demonstration of the being of a God. But...

And then after that he sings Milton's Hymn to the Creation. So he says, and I won't bother to sing that. I'll turn a blind eye to it. Here follows after the book reading a petition, and the

prequel to that or the prelude. In as much as by reason of our ignorance, we cannot be certain that many things which we often hear mentioned in the petitions of men to the Deity, would prove real goods if they were in our

possession. And as I have reason to hope and believe that the goodness of my Heavenly Father will not withhold from me a suitable share of temporal blessings, if by virtuous and holy life I

conciliate His favor and kindness, therefore I presume not to ask such things, but rather humbly and with a sincere heart express my earnest desire that He would graciously assist my continual endeavors and resolutions of eschewing vice

and embracing virtue, which kind of supplications will at the same time remind me in a solemn manner of my extensive duty, that I may be preserved from atheism, impiety, profaneness, and in my addresses

to thee, carefully avoid irreverence and ostentation, formality and odious hypocrisy. Help me, oh Father, that I may be loyal to my Prince and faithful to my country, careful for its good, valiant in its

defense and obedient to its laws, abhorring treason as much as tyranny. Help me, oh Father, that I may to those above me be dutiful, humble and submissive, avoiding pride, disrespect and

(inaudible) Help me, oh Father, that I may be to those below me, gracious, condescending and forgiving, using clemency, protecting innocent distress, avoiding cruelty, harshness and

oppression, insolence and unreasonable severity. Help me, oh Father, that I may refrain from calumny and detraction, that I may abhor and avoid deceit and envy, fraud, flattery, hatred, malice, lying, and ingratitude.

Help me, O Father, that I may be sincere in friendship, faithful in trust and impartial in judgment, watchful against pride and against anger, that momentary madness. Help me, O Father, that I may be just in all my dealings,

temperate in my pleasures, full of candor and ingeniousness, humanity and benevolence. Help me, oh Father, that I may be grateful to my benefactors and generous to my friends, exercising charity and

liberality to the poor and pity to the miserable. Help me, oh Father, that I may possess integrity and evenness of mind, resolution and difficulties and fortitude under affliction, that I may be punctual and perform my promises

peaceable and prudent in my behaviour. Help me, oh Father, that I may have tenderness for the weak and reverent respect for the ancient, that I may be kind to my neighbours, good-natured to my companions, and hospitable to

strangers. Help me, oh Father, that I may be averse to craft and overreaching, abhor extortion, perjury, and every kind of wickedness.

Help me, oh Father, that I may be honest and open hearted, gentle, merciful and good, cheerful in spirit, rejoicing in the good of others. Help me, oh Father, that I may have a constant regard to honor

and probity, that I may possess a perfect innocence at a good conscience, and at length become truly virtuous and magnanimous. Help me, good God, help me, oh Father, and for as much as ingratitude is one of the most odious devices, let me not be

unmindfully grateful to acknowledge the favors I received from Heaven. Well, then there's a kind of doxology, a thanks. And that ends the first part, but there is no second part.

It'd be interesting to know what he would have said in the second part. But I think you can see from what I've read here that Franklin has a sincere interest in religion that he

really does. Well, the question is how exactly does he see it, though? And Doctor Walters in particular has been fascinated by this idea of of polytheism.

And of course he calls his book Franklin and his Gods. And he says, how can we understand this, that this Franklin actually believed there are gods that are lesser? Well, in a sense, the way Walters looks at this is to say

Franklin does talk about some of the things that later theologians discuss. And I've read some of it to you and we can talk about the incomprehensible, that which cannot be put into, you know,

human language. So that he pictures God himself as being this remote and perfect being, but that there are intermediaries. Now, these aren't angels.

These aren't messengers. These intermediaries, Franklin, according to Walters, interprets as being various or multiplex or multitudinous perspectives on religion.

Just as he says, that last thing that writes to Styles, that I've always respected every other sect, even how outrageous or absurd. What Walters is saying here is that in a sense, Franklin is

saying that he has another place in which he talks about what writing to one of his nieces. He writes that, you know, religion is like sugar candy, he says, that's wrapped in paper and the paper is unimportant.

It's the candy that's within it. And he says that religion is like this, so that the many religions in the world are like these wrappers and that what we need to do is to seek the the essential sweetness of the

religion. And so what Walters is suggesting with a rather thorough analysis and many quotations. That Franklin is really, you know, now morality is an

extremely important part of religion for him, but it's not the only thing. And as a matter of fact, when Walt was talking about Franklin, you said something to the effect that, well, Franklin is

more concerned about doing good. His feeling of obligation is to mankind. And yet at the same time, Walters points out, and I certainly think this, I was raised in the Presbyterian

Church, which even if, you know, they don't actually say they believe in Calvinism, it's there, there's, you know, it, it's kind of like an inheritance, you know, and it's kind of like that saying don't think of a white bear, because

you know, you can't, once you know Calvinism, you can't get it out of your mind. And it seems very true that this was the case with Franklin. Franklin, despite all the optimism that he has in many

places and how virtue and doing good for mankind is the highest objective, he doesn't trust people. He believes that at core we are not good. As he puts it in one place, the materials themselves from which

God made us were bad. OK. And that selfishness and self-interest and all of the other things that we do to make others miserable

instead of happy is the the result of this. So that Franklin is really saying that we absolutely require religion, that without some kind of faith, we would not be motivated.

Well, he says in one place that if mankind is as bad as it is with religion, what would it be like without it? OK, so the interesting thing that we have here when I say that there's a kind of postmodernism to this is that if

we think of Franklin as really saying all religions are temporal, they come in time and they pass by, but that the essential sweetness of the candy wrapped in this wrapper remains. And that for a successful and happy life, we have to think

about this. But he's not overly optimistic about most people, as a matter of fact, now, of course, I think he was just joking, but he wrote to a

doctor friend of his and he said that half of the patients you save were too unworthy to be saved. The other half were too malicious to go on living. So in other words, he has, as you might imagine, anyone who

could have come up through the political struggles that he did. I mean, the things said about him, it's quite interesting just to read the things that Adams said about him.

I mean, that Franklin was suspected of, you know, doing this or doing that. The British thought that he was a cunning wizard who intended to do great harm to the empire.

And when, actually, I think that in many respects Franklin is tinged by realism, that he understands that, well, I've often said to classes, you know, I've looked at a number of models of explaining human behavior, like, for example,

Freud's, or, for example, Calvin's. And as one of my teachers said to me one time, you know, Freud was a very good observer, that the things he says don't make a lot of sense, but the observations are wonderfully

correct. And I'd say the same thing about Calvin. There is just something wrong with humanity that we, when given the opportunity, always do the bad thing, except for a few

saintly individuals. And Walters points out that the two people in England who probably impressed Franklin the most was this old landlady he had who was so kind and so generous to him.

He spent much time talking to her, and even more than that, living in the attic of the house was this very old woman who wanted to be a nun, but unfortunately there were no convents in England, so she decided that she would be a

private nun. So she gave away all her wealth except enough to have a pound a month to live on much of that which she gave away. And her room was as Spartan as you could imagine.

It had a cross on the wall. It had a bed and table. She cooked herself only a kind of porridge. And she never had a fire when she wasn't cooking.

And her whole life revolved around a daily visit from local priest. And, you know, some people point that out and say, well, this is Franklin's satire of what excess the religious can go to.

But I think on the other hand, he's not thinking that, he's really saying, you know, what it means that really it takes enormous self sacrifice to be good. I mean, it's so much easier.

I mean, we've had lots of examples of that lately, the last few years that, you know, Franklin was a lobbyist, you know, but it doesn't look as if he gave or took bribes. In fact, he talks about how the various ministers in the

government, you know, said, well, if you were helpful, you know, there could be things in it for you, you know, and he just let that pass by. Although, as I said, Adams was completely convinced that he had

been bought, but it's not true. So what I'm saying here is that there is still a lot more to do to understand Franklin's religion. And in fact, it may be a more interesting area than some of

the others. I mean, we know what an agreeable and understanding diplomat he was, that unlike Adams, he would not push the French government to do what they were not ready to do.

And in the meantime, he would show that he was one of them, that he was... He loved the French. He understood and respected their way of life, even though

much earlier in his life he called it a treacherous and intriguing nation. But later he came to really appreciate it. And Adams in particular objected to the attention that he got

from all the young women and how much he appreciated it, you know, but the point is that that he was really serving our country, I think, far better than anyone but General Washington.

And as a matter of fact, Franklin was regarded as the greatest American hero until the 19th century. And then Washington was kind of slipped in and replaced him. Perhaps that was a sign of our growing militarism.

I'm not sure. But at any rate, you know, Franklin represents, and he never let anyone forget it, that he's just a common person.

He was just a printer, that he was not given any special privileges. He did not want any special privileges, that he was just happy to be there and contribute and do the best that that he

could. And that kind of thinking has to have an origin in a view of the world that doesn't see death as the ultimate end. I mean, because why bother, you know, you would say. Now, he

always says he's not looking for a reward, but I think in in his case, if God just smiled at him, thank you, then would be funny. So well, what what questions do you have? Any anything you want

to ask about that? If I can answer it because it's just voluminous writing yeah. Yeah. Almost 25 years ago, a federal judge in Alabama received

in the United States, though, I mean, this is this is big time received orders from the Supreme Court that the law that had been passed by the state legislature in Alabama which permitted or actually required silent meditation was unconstitutional.

And the reason he said that was because in the course of the debate in the Senate in Alabama, the chief sponsor had said, and it was in the record, because he's put it there, that the only reason I'm submitting this bill to the Alabama

Legislature is to take the first step, to return prayer to the public schools. And with that legislative intent, the court then remanded the case to Judge W Brevard Hand to implement.

And his implementation order was not only is silent meditation now prohibited and any mention of religion in Alabama public schools, but also all the works by anyone who has ever written anything about a new religion called secular humanism.

Secular humanism. Which means the absence of God, but sort of a godliness that's there that tells you that the individual is is endowed or in Franklin's word, endued with a certain innate divinity to do good works and to improve the

world and then ultimately, perhaps to see life after death. So with all that long introduction, my question is this. Was Franklin a secular humanist? You know, I don't really believe that, though it's hard to

pin him down because he says, like, late in his life to President Styles that, you know, the things he ticks off are the primary five principles of of deism. And it doesn't look as if he thought... He says in another

place that you know, that the most important thing is to have some kind of relationship with God. If the God he describes in that first piece of writing, the dissertation, Liberty and Necessity, Pleasure and

Pain, that God, you know, has absolutely no concern for human beings. It's always an interesting question since I teach a religion class, a course in the Bible, the Old Testament,

the Hebrew Bible, is to ask the question, why would God create man in the first place? What, you know, what would be the reason? Well, the reason, as presumed by most of the temple religions in

Mesopotamia, was that God created them to feed them. And so, and of course I always have to point out to classes that religion in this ancient world was not like the religion that we have today, which would like to have individual

participation. It was only for the aristocracy, the king. And so the priests had elaborate rituals to feed and bathe and clean the the idol or the representation of God.

I'm not so sure. I've never been sure that they actually thought the idol was the god, but representation of them anyhow. And the only time the people of the nation really got to

participate was when they'd have a ceremony, which, you know, like, in Babylon, the king would take Marduk by the hand and receive blessing for the coming year. So as I say, it's, you know, it's hard to know

exactly what they mean by secular humanists anyhow, that someone who's good but doesn't believe in God, is that what they... Well, you know, it depends.

I mean, like deism and you can define it variously, but I was actually surprised that when you were giving a lengthy summary of his 1728 essay that you didn't talk about his epitaph that he wrote.

Oh, yes, yeah. Because that's to me very deistic but there's certain orthodox elements in it. But, well, the thing about Franklin is he never seemed to

want to associate himself with any particular. Remember, he says that when he when he helps to build that hall for George Whitefield and then turned it into, you know, the University of Pennsylvania.

Philadelphia Academy. Yeah. Philadelphia Academy. Yeah.

The earliest. But, so, you know, he prides himself on being a mediator among all the conflicting religious points of view because he has no particular one. Maybe he was a member of all the churches.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And he contributed money and was, you know, supportive and all of those things. So that I don't, you know, how you perceive God.

I'll put it this way. There's one thing that Franklin did not seem to have much respect for, and that is theology. The explanations that... It's the explanations of God, not the

presence of God, causes the problems. Well, then that's what. Yeah. Yeah.

So that, you know, and of course, I've often said to classes when I talk about this. Well, let's assume the truth of, you know, the Bible story in the Hebrew Bible or the Bible story in the New

Testament. So particularly the Bible story in the New Testament. So what does it mean? So we have this Jewish man who is a healer and a sage, cares

very much about the poor people, and the Romans regard him as subversive and execute him, and then he actually rises from the dead. So what does that mean?

So that it wasn't until Paul and others began to, you know, find some kind of interpretation that it meant anything at all. You know, it would just be a marvelous miracle. But what was would it,

what would it mean? And of course, this is what Franklin is saying, that the various corruptions have come into religions because of the interpretations that the religious leaders have given.

What is very interesting is that, do you remember the Hemphill... Oh yeah. ...Episode?

Yeah. Where Samuel Hemphill is a young Presbyterian from Ireland who gave marvelous sermons. And Franklin went to the church, and Franklin...

And then he left. Yeah. When Hemphill showed up, he went back. Yes, yes, he went back.

He disliked Andrews, the regular minister normally because, as he said, they weren't teaching us to be good Christians, they were teaching us to be good Presbyterians. OK.

So that all of his, what, you know, his sermons concerned doctrinal issues, you know, instead of concerning larger issues. So that, of course, as it turned out for Hemphill, he had to

plagiarize. He said he had an incredible memory. All he had to do was read a sermon once, and... He should have been a politician.

Don't you psychologist types call that identic memory? Yeah, yeah, I mean, really. So. And he stopped going.

Franklin stopped going. And then Andrew said, well, why did you stop? And he said, guess why? Yes, yes, so, but the enormous ecclesiastical trial

that resulted from that, that, you know, he was heretical because he wasn't talking just about Presbyterian doctrine. So, you know, it looks, I really think that Franklin

had a sincere belief in a God, but thought that it would be obscured if you started to get into theology. Because the problem is the theologians have their own agenda.

And, you know, how do we know that agenda relates to God in the least? So, and this is why Walters is talking about this as a multiple perspective view of religion.

That religion can be expressed in a number of different ways, a number of different times, and that it changes so that it meets the needs of the people. It's interesting to see, you know, Christianity among

religions is one of the most adaptable. It's incredible how it's adapted. It's in a new form now, which arose about 1900, the Azusa Street Church in San Francisco.

It's called Pentecostalism and it may well be the largest Christian religion in the world. Give it another 25, 30 years. You know, it has made such inroads in South America, the

Catholic Church trembles, and it's making enormous inroads into Africa. And if the people who profess it we're not killed, it probably would make inroads into Islam

also. So yeah. Oh, I couple observations, I guess. When you were reading, I think it was the second dissertation, it reminded me of

the prayers, prayers of the people, prayers for the people. Right. But it was prayers for me, you know, from his point of view, which almost made me wonder if it was satire.

I don't know. Well, that's been suggested. That's been suggested. You're not... I don't want to make you feel bad and

say that you're not the first one to suggest it, but I would never think... It's been suggested. The other thing that made me think of was that he didn't really say, but he kind of did, was the, the Lord hear our

prayer refrain. And it was... Maybe it was your presentation of it, but it was like we kept getting more and more in Presbyterianism. I understand that it's more intellectual and... I used to think

that was Presbyterianism. Yeah. And so I can see, I can see him along that path as well. Well, he says that he read many of the books of sermons and

treatises of theology that his father had in his library and he felt that if only he had had better reading material to spend his time on. So I think Franklin just did not...

Well, the problem with theology is he says that it's, and he says this multiple times, that every religion thinks it has the sole truth. And because of that, you know, that you really can't

express those human qualities of generosity and tolerance and understanding and things like that, because it's like the discussions that are going on now between Islam and the Catholic Church.

And I understand that there were only peripheral issues that were really raised. An issue that they carefully avoided was, what about people who convert?

You know, well, I don't know what the Catholics do with them now, but they in Islam, you will be stoned. And so not a good situation, but it comes from the fact, and this is the problem with all the Abrahamic

religions, that they have the belief that there's only one God. Actually, it'd be interesting to know if Franklin had the insight that polytheism has its virtues because it goes from people to

people very easily. I mean, so you call your high God Zeus and I call him Jupiter, you know, but there's no problem. I can translate from that very easily.

And polytheism is basically a nature, it's a nature religion really, because all the forces of nature have their gods. And so when you need, you know, extra assistance from the rain

god you pray to him, and when you when you see someone attractive and she's not paying attention, then you pray to Venus or Aphrodite. So what I'm saying is that I can't actually see, I've gone

over this, any religious intolerance in the ancient world until we get to the Seleucids, the Greeks and Antiochus, or Antiochus the fourth, who persecutes the Jews relentlessly trying to stamp out Judaism, actually is not doing it

so much for religious reasons, but for political reasons. He wants to unite his empire against the growing Roman threat. And so he thinks that having people who have such a culture

that is so different will weaken his empire, of course, enables, you know, in a way, the Jews to finally get a king again because they defeat him. It's quite an interesting story that they do with first

and second Maccabees. But now the Romans, you'd say, well, they were intolerant. Well, I'll tell you what it reminded me of. Remember how people were very upset because Barack Obama was

not wearing a flag pin? What is wrong with a person who won't wear a flag pin? You know as if the flag pin were equivalent somehow to, you know, charging the machine gun nest or or

something like that. You know, that this this was a sign of lack of patriotism and the same thing the Romans wanted you to make, what, a kind of pro forma recognition of the state.

And that was in performing, you know, this ritual sacrifice. And there are many stories about Saints who, the very people who were the administrators begged them, please, pretend to

do it, you know, just pretend to do it and it'll be enough. Of course they would not, you know, and that that's in itself an interesting question, you know. Well, are there other questions?

Well, one thing, I think it's kind of interesting that, you know, we sort of in Christian religions, we seem to assume that, you know, it's the belief in the afterlife that, you know, like maybe you even mentioned the motivation to lead a good

life. But in Judaism, you know, in some religions, you just... Judaism, I think, you just, you lead a good life because you should lead a good life.

I'm not sure where that comes in. And it almost seems like Franklin is more, you know, you should. Well, I've always regarded a seeking after the afterlife as

disqualifying the religion because what it does is it's just like, you would say, are you leading a good life so you can... One passage from the scriptures, you know, you will do good to your enemies so you can heap coals of fire on

them. And I asked my class, can you picture what heaven would be like since it's easy for them to picture hell. Well, I said, picture a huge plate glass window and all the

Saints can come and watch the people being tortured in hell. You know, this will be this will be the activities because they don't seem to know what else you would do in heaven.

So they can, they can point. Boy, look at that over there, you know? But I mean, really, are you serving God if you, you know, are waiting for that reward, you know, or is it just a salary?

That's all there is to it, you know. Well, that was the other thing about Franklin. You know, I started thinking maybe he's just supporting all these religions just to cover his bases.

Well, Adams would have said that. That's right. That's the cynical point. Yeah, Adams would have said that.

I mean, you see someone like Franklin, he's too good to be true. Now, of course, he had his faults. They said he was a poor sport at playing chess, that he did

everything he could to distract his opponent. I wrote an essay on chess which actually talked about things you shouldn't do, like... Yes, yes.

And it's said that if people... It's said that if someone left to go to the bathroom. Franklin would rearrange the pieces. Oh, well, just a kid.

Well, if you don't take it too seriously, that's the thing. I think along the same lines of the accounts he gives in the autobiography about how he happened to be friends, so and so and so and so.

And then he just happened to get the state contract for printing up the bills. I mean, well, those things don't just happen. I think that's the biggest piece of fiction that Franklin ever wrote is his autobiography.

That what he does is he's creating, and he's very capable of it because an excellent writer, he's creating this character of Benjamin Franklin, who is, if you could put it that way, remember Krevkor talks about the

new man. That's Franklin. He's the new man, the man who is totally self reliant, is able to work with anyone and is not trying to cheat them, but trying

to be cooperative so that the larger social good will will come out of the relationship. So that... I admire Franklin a great deal. So what we need is a Franklin today.

You'd be surprised how many young people think he was actually president of the United States. Oh, really? I know they think he was a little fat man...

like Santa Claus. No, he was. He was quite big and in very good health, you know, a real athlete.

Really. You know, do you think more people, more young people recognize him and his name and his picture than other of the founders?

I mean, if they thought he was president, it'd be interesting to know if... I don't know the answer to that. There was a poll that was just released that said that not only high school students, but even college freshmen, sophomores

don't even know there are three branches of the government. I'm not sure what they recognize. You had to take a civics class. No, it's remarkable what they don't know.

I have been reduced to saying, What do you get in high school? What do you go over? Do they teach history?

Do they teach, you know, any other subjects, you know? Because as I said, they do know when the War of 1812, but they don't know when it ended.

They're not even sure whether it was before or after the Second World War. That's right. I mean it.

It's, you know, have you ever seen jaywalking on... Yeah, on Jay Leno? I mean, honest to God, these are students at UCLA. That's one of the, what?

The five best state schools in our country. I wonder if he would walk around Yale a little bit, or Amherst, and see if he got the same story from them. Harvard.

Yeah. Harvard. Well, well, I thank you all.