Comparing The Faiths Of Deism And Puritanism Philosophy Essay

Comparing The Faiths Of deism And prudeism Philosophy EssayThe eighteenth century and the age of the enlighten custodyt was a period in Ameri chiffonier history which saw a proliferation of umteen new scientific ideas as well as an increase in religious tolerance. During this cartridge clip slicey intellectuals explored new possibilities and interpretations of religion that were sometimes instead contradictory to the prudeism that had been the standard religious practice since Puritans first settled the innovative England region. Deism, which was quite radical in contrast to the Puritan faith, came about during this time, and asa dulcis Franklin, a famous enlightenment figure and a founding gravel of America, was one of its first spokespersons. The Deist doctrine he wrote as a 19 year old preaches a starkly different pith from the writings of famous Puritans such as Mary Rowlandson, Michael Wigglesworth, and John Winthrop. dapple their works paint a portrait of divinity a s a severe, de soldieryding creator and man as a sinful, wild beast who must(prenominal) be restricted in his actions, Franklins piece on Deism portrays a more benevolent immortal who has released man into the universe to pursue his sustain goals without fear of deitys interference and wrath. It is these ideas of gods intent and the personality of man which set these twain religious philosophies and their writings apart. The Puritan understanding of divinity as a vengeful and commanding ruler of men is one that dominates the writings of both of the most(prenominal) famous and widely read Puritan authors of the seventeenth and 18th centuries. Michael Wigglesworths poetry The Day of Doom is particularly useful in foreground this belief as its content focuses on Christs return to earth on Judgement day and how he deals with the sinners. He opens the poem with the citations The Mountains smoak, the Hills are shook, the world is rent and torn, and Straightaway appears (the y seet with tears) the Son of God most dread, (Wigglesworth, 3.) From the first lines of the poem there is a sense of helplessness and despair in the spunk of an angry God who is going to judge and punish his subjects on his terms. The descriptions of Gods close of the physical earth demonstrates his awesome power, and the use of the word dread to delimit peoples perception of God is very telling of the Puritan belief. Even though they dread his second coming and his vengeance, they have a profound esteem for his power and submit themselves to his will. The poem goes on to describe who is going to infernal region and why, and this passage functions to demonstrate the strict qualifications for getting into heaven that the Puritans believe God employs in his judgement of souls. Children who are too young to read the bible, primaeval Americans, and the ment everyy ch each(prenominal)enged are all unworthy of heaven in the eyeball of God because they lack the ability to understa nd the Puritan faith (Wigglesworth, 4.) on with these people unwelcome in Gods kingdom are all non-believers, sinners, and anyone who is exclusively non predestined to be saved by God. These harsh qualifications preached by Wigglesworth and other Puritans to a very accepting public are all strong testaments to the harsh nature of the Puritans God. In contrast to the harsh God of Puritanism, Deism preaches that God is a benevolent, all knowing creator who does not find evil to punish in the world of men and can for the most part leave them to their own devices. Franklin outlines this idea at the stock of his doctrine on Deism, A Dissertation on Liberty and Necessity, entertainment and Pain, with the idea that If God is all-powerful, there can be nothing either living or acting in the Universe against or without his Consent and what he consents to must be good, because he is good therefore Evil doth not exist. (Franklin 26.) This statement is radically different from the Puritan system of belief because it eliminates the innovation of evil and therefore demonstrates a more pleasant interpretation of God. or else than stressing the lead for Gods constant exertion of bureau everyplace humankind and its evils finished interference and penalization, Franklin asserts that since God do everything and knows everything, there is no reason for him to raze bother with the trivial affairs of humans, much less reprimand them. This is a very Deist concept of a God who is less obscure in the daily business of man. The common Deist perception of God, which embodies this take to of a wise and somewhat removed God, is often illustrated by the cooking stove of God as a clock bewilderr who has set the universe into operation to play out without his influence. The idea of Gods constant interference in the lives of men, which Franklin refutes as unnecessary because Gods has already predetermined the fate of the entire universe and its inhabitants, is some other c ornerstone of the Puritan belief system. One of the best examples of this idea in Puritan writing is Mary Rowlandsons A Narrative of the Captivity and retort of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson which describes the destruction of her town at the hands of a dress circle of Native Americans and her subsequent captivity among them. This work gives a slightly more benevolent description of God as her protector finished and through these hardships, unless her easy acceptance and rationalization of the massacre as Gods will and punishment still alludes to the harsh nature of God and highlights his interferences in the lives of Puritans. One of the most telling quotes of the account, which Rowlandson uses to sum up her beliefs, comes in the final paragraph when she says, yet I see when God calls a person to any thing, and through never so many difficulties, yet he is fully sufficient to carry them through, and make them see and say they have been gainers thereby, (Rowlandson, 20.) Rowlandson cite s Gods hand end-to-end the piece in every aspect of her captivity, and in this conclusion she makes it quite clear that it was God who put her through the terrors of these tribulations. The idea of God carrying her through her troubles and making her see and say that she is better for the experience not tho indicates that God is responsible for what happened, but that he was actively focused on her for every instant of her captivity. The nature of man is another key foreshadow of disagreement between the two religious beliefs, and the Puritan stance views man as a beastly creature whose primitive instincts must be controlled by the authority of God. John Winthrops famous essay On semipolitical Authority and Liberty, which is both a description of Gods intent of how the people should be ruled and a pitch to be reelected as governor, gives examples of this belief in mans unruly nature. Winthrop makes a point of driving home exactly how God feels about mans more primal, natural lib erties when he says, This kind of liberty is that great enemy of verity and peace, that wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against, to restrain and humble it. (Winthrop 1.) The kind of liberty that he is alluding to is mans freedom in nature to do whatever he wants. According to Winthrop, this freedom, which man shares with all beasts and other creatures leads to funny farm and must be controlled. This concept of the natural evil in men and the fact that God must constantly restrain men pervades Puritan doctrine and directly carries over to the Puritan style of governing that stresses love to authority figures. Unlike the Puritan idea of mans evil nature and his need to be controlled, Deism states that mans nature is inherently good and that control over his actions is unnecessary. Franklins writings illustrate this idea when he says, If a Creature is made by God, it must depend upon God, and receive all its baron from Him with which Power the Creature can do nothing contrary to the Will of God because God is Almighty what is not contrary to Gods Will, must be lovely to it what is agreeable to it, must be good, because He is good therefore a Creature can do nothing but what is good, (Franklin, 27.) In this quote Franklin asserts his belief that since the all-good and almighty creator made man and gave him his nature and abilities, man must be naturally good. He also makes the point that all of mans actions are actions of which God made him able therefore, man can make no natural action which is not inherently good. This idea of man as good from the start clearly breaks from the general Christian and especially Puritan belief of original sin, and this stark difference demonstrates the progressive nature of Deisms. The idea that man is inherently good removes the need for overbearing authority and allows for man to rule himself. The overwhelming differences in the beliefs of Deism and Puritanism on the subjects of God and the nature of man illustrate a clear break in the religious ideas of 18th century America. The contrast between Franklins writings and those of his Puritan predecessors demonstrates the shift from the nearly uniform belief in religion of the 17th century to a more progressive atmosphere in the time which Franklin writes. The Deist beliefs of the goodness in God and man explore an substitute to the strict Puritan faith, and in both Franklins time and today they serve as a mode of beliefs which fit the understanding of many religious Americans.