The Common Sense of Common Sense

Thomas Paine and the Birth of
Natural Religion, Natural Law
and Enlightenment Philosophy
by Brad Hart

In the October, 2008 issue of the William and Mary Quarterly, historian Sophia Rosenfeld of the University of Virginia takes an in-depth look at a document, which despite its large popularity, often goes overlooked. As most history geeks already know, Thomas Paine's epic pamphlet, Common Sense was a literal best seller in 1776, catapulting the discussion of independence from Britain into the forefront of the American conversation. As a result, Paine became an overnight celebrity of sorts, a colonial J.K Rowling who followed up the success of Common Sense with a number of other influential works. Yet despite the massive attention that Common Sense has received over the centuries, there is still much about the text itself that deserves the undivided attention of historians today.

Hence the insightful article of historian Sophia Rosenfeld, who, despite all the superficial notions suggesting that Common Sense has been dissected thoroughly enough, provides us with a new and astute interpretation of this timeless American classic.

According to Rosenfeld, Common Sense can and should be seen in conjunction with the emergence of 18th century Enlightenment philosophy and the budding seeds of common sense beliefs. As Rosenfeld points out:

The history of common sense -- as a cognitive faculty, and a set of basic ideas, even as a rhetorical form -- has been interwoven with politics at every turn. Its rise as an important epistematic authority began in context not only of the decline of Aristotelian understandings of sense perception but also of the crisis in traditional forms of legitimation characteristic of late-seventeenth-century European religious and political life. From this moment onward, common sense, with its foundations in the basic mental abilities of common people, functioned alternately to bolster or to supersede more conventional sources of legitimation or evidence, including the Bible, law, history, custom, reason, and scholastic knowledge (635).

Keeping in mind the numerous blog conversations we have enjoyed on the role of natural religion, laws of nature, etc., Dr. Rosenfeld's interpretation of common sense as a palpable intellectual alternative to traditional forms of legitimation is striking. As she suggests, the common sense found within Common Sense is in complete agreement with the emerging unitarian/natural religion ideologies of the late 18th century. In fact, the British colonies in America were the perfect breeding ground for the development of such beliefs. As Dr. Rosenfeld states:

As anthropologists and historians of mentalities have frequently pointed out, most assumptions deemed self-evident by their propogators turn out, on inspection, to be highly culturally specific. This includes the very idea of common sense itself (635).

In other words, what one people uphold to be self-evident truths supported by the very laws of nature itself are sometimes seen by others in a very different way. Perhaps this explains why so many nations reject the American form of "self-evident" and "divinely-sanctioned" democratic government.

The success of Common Sense in the American colonies, though certainly the result of the intense political strife between the colonies and the mother country, has a much deeper root that is worthy of consideration. As Dr. Rosenfeld points out, the 18th century was an era of incredible advancement in rational thought, all of which inspired a return to the "glory days" of the Western world's ancient philosophers. Rosenfeld writes:

The 1700s, and particularly the 1770s, were one of the great ages of thinking about common sense and its meaning and function. By the last quarter of the eighteenth century, this concept became a staple ingredient of polemical writing of all sorts...By the middle of the eighteenth century, the English phrase "common sense" could be used to mean, at once, a basic ability to form clear perceptions and make elementary judgements about everyday matters; the conventional wisdom born of those common judgements and shared by all sensible people (641).

When seen in this light, Benjamin Franklin's "public religion" and Jefferson's "natural religion" are essentially nothing more than an appeal to the Enlightenment doctrines of common sense. As a result, natural religion, deism, theistic rationalism, etc. are all deeply rooted in a shared "common sense."

Paine's Common Sense, provides ample examples of how Enlightenment common sense was applied to the American call for independence. On numerous occasions, Paine cites the "simple voice of nature and of reason," all of which suggest that the course of independence was right. On another occasion, this same "simple voice of nature" was employed to condemn the motherland for her actions:

The blood of the slain, the weeping voice of nature cries, 'TIS TIME TO PART.' Even the distance which the Almighty has placed England and America is a strong and natural proof that the authority of the one, over the other, was never the design of Heaven [my emphasis].

And perhaps the best example of the common sense of Common Sense can be found in Paine's personal ideology of government:

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be distorted; and the easier repaired when distorted [my emphasis.]

This doctrine of common sense was not exclusively unique to Paine alone. Religious leaders, who were themselves enmeshed in the changes brought on by Enlightenment philosophy, were beginning to turn to a more "common sense" -- i.e. theistic rationalism, deism, unitarianism -- creed. Rosenfeld writes:

Even the Presbyterian thinkers of mid-eighteenth-century Aberdeen used the idea of common sense to partisan advantage, hoping to sway public opinion in one particular direction, especially when it came to religious questions, and away from other. The radical continental Enlightenment forged it into a public weapon. That it sounded objective and indisputable yet popular was the source of its success as an organ of subjective, partisan and always potentially demagogic political action.

The 18th century "common sense" religion of the Enlightenment not only broke the bands of traditional orthodoxy, but also ushered in a commitment to embracing the "natural order" of "nature's God." By looking to a common sense understanding of the world the devotion to religious orthodoxy began to waver at an alarming rate. In conclusion, Dr. Rosenfeld best sums up the doctrine of 18th century common sense when she writes:

With Paine's polemic, then, we see common sense function not only as a foundation for certain knowledge but also a way to undermine what passes for unassailable fact in the present. We see common sense as the corollary of ordinary, commonplace language and simultaneously as a means to cut through the filter of words, especially those that serve to obfuscate or disguise reality. We see common sense as the voice of the peopleas a whole and as the voice of the clear-sighted, prophetic individual who intuits what the people should be able to grasp but cannot alone. And we see common sense mean not only what is common in the here and now but also what is authentical to the common until some later moment in time(653).

Or in other words, the emergence of natural religion, laws of nature, etc.

A Bit More on America's Historical Amnesia

I am currently reading a book by Susan Jacoby entitled, The Age of American Unreason (which, by the way, I would reccommend to you all), which deals primarily with America's lack of historical knowledge and its apathy towards sincere learning. I bring this up on our blog because one of the central claims in her books is that the ideals of the 18th century Enlightenment have been replaced with modern ignorance and narcissism, which she claims is self-inflicted. In her introduction, Jacoby writes:

During the past four decades, America's endemic anti-intellectual tendencies have been grievously exacerbated by a new species of semiconscious anti-rationalism, feeding on and fed by an ignorant popular culture of video images and unremitting noise that leaves no room for contemplation or logic. This new form of anti-rationalism, at odds not only with the nation's heritage of eighteenth-century Enlightenment reason but with modern scientific knowledge, has propelled a surge of anti-intellectualism capable of inflicting vastly greater damage than its historical predecessors inflicted on American culture and politics.

Jacoby then goes on to quote Thomas Jefferson, who stated "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Jacoby's claims, comined with what we have discussed earlier, have caused me to wonder if our post-modern civilization is better off than that of our 18th century ancestors. Is it possible that we have actually lost more than we've gained? Is this problem of America's collective "amnesia" really that serious, or are we just blowing things out of proportion?

Your thoughts...

American Revolution v. French Revolution

The eighteenth-century was a time of wide-spread enlightenment and phenomenal political advancement. To be certain, the culminating events of that century were the American and French Revolutions. Both saw the overthrow of traditional monarchical rule, followed by the establishment of republican law. But which revolution had the bigger impact?

To be certain, both citizens of America and France defend their respective revolution as being most important, and with good reason. I don't expect Americans in today's society to proclaim the French Revolution as more important to world history, nor do I expect the French to think of America's revolution in the same light either. The growth of nationalism in the 20th century would make such an inquiry virtually impossible.

Instead, I would like us to understand these revolutions from the perspective of the participants. If we were to travel back in time to 1789, there can be NO QUESTION that the citizens of America and France (along with most of Europe) would be hailing the French Revolution as THE MOST IMPORTANT movement of their era. Virtually nobody would think to include the Constitutional Convention in such an argument. After all, America was a frontier nation, not the sophisticated world of France!

With this said, however, as the French Revolution wore on, more and more Americans began to see the American Revolution through a different lens. As the events of "The Terror" and other violent outbreaks began to ravage the French countryside, the differences between the motivating factors for revolution in America v. France became much more clear. As one historian put it:

Unlike the American Revolution, whose philosophical ancestors were the English liberals, the French Revolution was fundamentally fathered by the French radical philosophers, especially Jean Jacques Rousseau, and inherited the faith in reason engendered by The Enlightenment. RenŽ Descartes' trust in geometric like reasoning and Rousseau's belief in the common will and sovereignty of the people framed the conception guiding the French Revolution. This conception is mechanical. Government is a machine, fueled by coercive power, and driven by reason; and its destination is Social Justice. Government is thus a tool to reach a future goal -- improving man. Those in charge of the State would therefore use reason to apply government to further and create Social Justice.

This conception is clearly different from that of the American revolutionaries. For the Americans, interests were the guiding force; for the French, reason. For the Americans, Freedom was to be preserved against the State; for the French, the State was used by reason to achieve Social Justice. For the Americans, individual rights were essential to protect interests; for the French, the collective, the sovereignty of the people, the general will stood above rights. Finally, for the Americans, no one interest could be entrusted with the State -- all interests had to be limited and balanced by their opposition; for the French, the State was a tool that should have no limit so long as Social Justice was pursued according to the common will.

Despite the motivations for instigating revolution, there can be no mistaking the fact that these two revolutions, both of extreme importance to world history, had very different conceptions.

The Religion of the Founding Fathers

This posting is inspired by the comments made in the Huckabee posting below. Raven mentioned that he is opposed to the notion that the Founding Fathers were Christian men. Obviously this is a very popular and controversial topic, so I am expecting this post to be a lot of fun. I look forward to what you all have to say.


In his book The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (which I happen to believe is the best source on this issue), author David Holmes has created a religious test of sorts that I feel is very applicable. Holmes states that, "An examination of history cannot capture the inner faith of any man. But in the case of the Founding Fathers of the United States, readers can use these four indicators to locate the founders on the religious spectrum with some confidence." Holmes has devised a four-point test that I believe is very helpful in understanding the religious nature of the Funding Fathers. These four points allow us to put the faiths of the Founding Fathers into perspective. The points are:

1. Church Attendance
2. Approach to the Sacraments and Ordinances
3. Level of Church Activity and Involvement
4. The Type of Religious Language Used

Using these four criteria, Holmes states where each of the Founding Fathers ranks on the religious spectrum. First off, it is important that we recognize the role that the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening played in shaping the religious beliefs of colonial America. As Daniel Walker Howe states in his epic book What Hath God Wrought, religious ideology, especially Christian ideology, was very different during the colonial era than it is today. By looking at these four points, we can determine to what degree deism and Christianity influenced the individual.

There is of course many other factors than these simple four points, which shaped the individual beliefs of our Founding Fathers. These points, however, can help us see the impact of deism and Christianity on the individual. A deist would be more likely to attend church less frequently, would strongly oppose sacraments and ordinances, would have a low level of church involvement, and would use very neutral religious language when referring to deity. An orthodox Christian, however, would be the exact opposite. With that said, let us look at several of the Founding Fathers using the test provided by Holmes.

George Washington: Obviously Washington is the most popular of the Founding Fathers, and there is a great deal of religious myth that surrounds him. There is perhaps more written on the religious views of Washington than any other Founding Father. His legacy has been used by secularists and religious zealots alike, in order to shape their respective agendas. But what were his religious beliefs? Here is what Holmes states:


1.) Church Attendance: Washington, though not as devout as the typical orthodox of his day, did attend church with some regularity, and as Holmes states, “held organized religion in high regard, and was known to pray privately.”

2.) Approach to the Sacraments and Ordinances: Washington was known for regularly leaving church services before any and all sacraments. Washington strictly refused to partake in any other religious ordinances.

3.) Level of Church Activity and Involvement: Washington was a vestryman in both the Anglican and Episcopal churches, but was never confirmed in any church. Washington strongly opposed any orthodox allegiance to any one church, and remained a non-ordained, non-confirmed churchgoer.

4.) Religious Language Used: Washington’s religious vernacular was mixed with Deist and Christian phrases. Though he regularly referred to deity as “Providence” and “the Grand Architect” Washington also used the words “God” and “Christ” on a regular basis as well.

So where does Holmes rank Washington? He calls him a “Christian Deist.”

Thomas Jefferson

This one is almost too easy. Jefferson attended very little church, he never participated in sacraments and ordinances, was never ordained or confirmed (in fact he believed such practices were morally reprehensible), and his religious language was VERY common for a Deist (just look at the Declaration of Independence where Jefferson uses phrases like "Providence" and "Nature's God"). Jefferson also regularly denied the divinity of Christ, but referred to him as "the greatest philosopher." In his Bible, Jefferson even removed all references to Jesus being a savior figure.

Holmes states, and I strongly agree, that Jefferson was a non-Christian Deist. This one is pretty easy.

Benjamin Franklin
Franklin is an interesting figure. He donated a large amount of money to virtually every religion in Philadelphia and even attended most of them. Franklin, however, was never confirmed, nor did he participate in sacraments and ordinances of any church. Franklin even states in his autobiography that he denies the divinity of Jesus. Holmes also calls Franklin a Deist.

So where are the Orthodox Christians? Here is just a small list:
Patrick Henry
Samuel Adams
John Jay
Martha Washington
Charles Carrol
Elias Boudinot
John Q. Adams

And Christian Deists? Here again is another small list that Holmes mentions:
George Washington
Abigail Adams
Alexander Hamilton
John Hancock

And here is Holmes's list of non-Christian Deists:
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Adams
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Paine

Ok, let the debating begin!

Book Review: "Faiths of the Founding Fathers"

The Founding Fathers and religion has been a very hot issue in recent years. In his book "Faiths of the Founding Fathers" David Holmes helps to resurrect the key elements that made colonial religion distinct from modern practices. Holmes effectively demonstrates the role and importance of the Enlightenment and Deism during the 18th century. Along with recreating the religious atmosphere of the 18th century, Holmes also gives a detailed analysis of several Founding Fathers and their personal beliefs of God, religion, heaven, hell, etc.

This is a wonderful book! Most of the books that talk about religion and our Founding Fathers carry a strong bias with them. There is almost always an agenda to their approach. Holmes, however, does not try to portray the Founding Fathers as zealous Christians or as Atheists. Instead he focuses on the facts using a large amount of primary sources to back them up.

The main thesis that Holmes tries to get across is that colonial religious ideology was very different than it is in our modern times. Holmes makes it clear that the Founding Fathers had different concepts of Christianity than exist today. Holmes sums up the Founding Fathers by calling them "Theistic Rationalists", meaning that many of them embraced religious ideologies, but rarely gave allegiance to a particular sect. Of course Holmes mentions the few founders (like Patrick Henry) that were strongly devoted to a particular church, but he suggests that this was the exception to the rule.

I would recommend "Faiths of the Founding Fathers" to anyone that is interested in the religious aspects of 18th century colonial America, or interested in the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers.

Overall, this book gets an A- (The minus is because he could have gone into more detail).