Elihu Palmer’s Journey from Religion to Reason
The integrating thread of Elihu Palmer’s approach to all aspects of philosophy is applying reason to the facts of reality.
_The despotism of kings and priests trembles only when it is approached by the vigorous power of thought, and the efforts of a philosophic mind. —_Elihu Palmer1
The United States of America was the first country in the world “to have an avowed philosophic meaning,” observes philosopher Leonard Peikoff. However, he points out:
The Founding Fathers were thinkers but not philosophic innovators. They took their basic ideas from European intellectuals, they assumed with the rest of their age that these ideas were now incontestable and even self-evident, and they turned their attention to the urgent task of implementing these ideas in the realm of practical affairs.2
But a few American intellectuals did see the need for a new philosophic system. Elihu Palmer (1764–1806) was a preacher who came to reject organized religion and set about creating a rational philosophy—one based on observation and reason. The result was a system that, in Palmer’s view, undergirded the values of the American founding. Although raised in a Calvinist family, Palmer came to reject supernaturalism. He grew to see religion as the cause of mass suffering and a roadblock to human progress throughout history. Although a notable figure in his day, he has been almost completely forgotten since.
From Religion to Reason
Born into a deeply religious family in colonial Connecticut during a period of intense religious and political discord, Palmer found himself pulled in different ideological directions throughout his youth. On one hand, traditional Protestants, including Palmer’s family, were engaged in a fierce theological conflict with a growing sect of Puritan Revivalists. Both sides claimed that the other’s priests weren’t qualified to preach—the traditionalists requiring formal training to qualify, the Revivalists requiring testimony of having experienced a divine “revelation.”3 Many of the churches around Palmer’s hometown of Canterbury were epicenters of conflict between the two movements.
At the same time, people around him fiercely debated whether the American colonies should be independent. The Revolutionary War began when Palmer was around eleven years old, and although he was too young to go to war himself, the war would later come to him. In 1781, British forces led by American defector Benedict Arnold burned nearby New London to the ground.4 After the war, debates raged over how the newly formed American nation should be run. Many believed that traditional religious values were essential to governing the new country if it was to survive and avoid chaos.
Given these experiences, when Palmer went to study divinity at Dartmouth College after the war, he was already prepared to question and evaluate the religious and political ideas he encountered, and question them he did.
By the time he graduated in 1787, he had begun writing in the Berkshire Observer under the pseudonym Alfred (after King Alfred the Great, a noted proponent of education in Saxon England). Therein he questioned aspects of Christian dogma such as the Trinity (the idea that God is composed of three parts: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and the notion of original sin.5 Palmer loved learning and had an active, reasoning mind. He read important works by thinkers such as David Hume, John Locke, and Baruch Spinoza, bringing their ideas to bear on his religious studies and the political debates of his day. His curiosity about ideas and the world at large would lead him to work as a researcher for Jedidiah Morse’s The American Universal Geography (1793), for which Palmer compiled extensive information about various parts of the world.
After graduating, Palmer moved to Athens, Georgia, where he worked as a Universalist preacher. The Universalists held that everyone will ultimately be saved by God, which likely appealed to Palmer given his rejection of original sin. Nonetheless, his constant challenging of established theology—especially his view that Jesus Christ was not a divine being—was too much even for the Universalists, and they ultimately banned him from preaching for them.
During his time in Georgia, he was shocked by the spectacle of slavery, including, in the local press, advertisements for slaves and notices calling for the return of runaways, printed alongside his own writings (still under the name Alfred).6 In 1790, his friend Isaac Briggs persuaded him to join the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. Although Palmer was still living in Georgia at the time, he would move to Philadelphia in 1792. There, the 1790 Pennsylvania State Constitution allowed for relatively free expression of religious ideas; and, after moving, Palmer began publishing his religious and political views under his real name.
In Philadelphia, Palmer also joined John Fitch’s short-lived Deist Society of Naturalist Philosophers, though he did not yet consider himself a deist. (Deists believe in a god who created the universe but does not interfere in human affairs, and they do not subscribe to any religious texts or organized religion.) Palmer thereby traded the Universalist movement, which had considered his views too radical, for one sympathetic to his emerging idea that philosophy, including morality, should be based on reason, not revelation. Shortly after arriving, he raised public furor by giving a speech in which he repudiated the divinity of Christ. In the midst of the controversy, he wrote to the Federal Gazette that if the “old fabric” of Christian thinking cannot withstand “fair argumentation,” then “it should fall to the ground.”7
Even in Philadelphia, with its relative religious freedom, espousing these ideas could get Palmer in serious trouble. Although the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibited the federal government from censoring speech, many states, including Pennsylvania, maintained blasphemy laws. Indeed, in 1814, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court convicted and fined Abner Updegraph for saying that Christian scripture is “mere fable, contradictory and full of lies.”8 Palmer risked such a conviction every time he publicly criticized Christianity.
He spent much of this time wrestling with contradictions between his lingering Christian ideas and his developing rational philosophy. He tried to weed out supernatural and mystical ideas from his worldview, putting a lot of thought into whether the beliefs that had surrounded him since childhood could be justified on the basis of observation and logic alone. Palmer encountered vicious opposition while in Philadelphia, including being banned from meeting places and attacked regularly in the press. Distressed by this, Palmer returned to Georgia, where he had previously begun studying law. He soon passed the bar there and returned to Philadelphia the next year to work as a lawyer.9
A major outbreak of yellow fever in Philadelphia in 1793 turned Palmer’s life upside down. The disease overran the city, and he and his wife both caught it. She died from her infection, and although Palmer survived (possibly thanks to his refusal to be bled by his doctor, Benjamin Rush, believing that it would weaken him), he lost his sight to the disease. After witnessing the enormous suffering caused by this natural phenomenon—and losing both his love and his sight—he moved further away from belief in a god that interferes in human affairs.
Palmer still believed in a perfect creator god, but he gradually recognized that the God depicted in the Bible could not be such a perfect being, nor the creator of the natural universe. The notion that a perfect god could be vengeful, violent, and unfair was abhorrent to him; as he later said, it is “less pernicious for man to believe in no God, than to believe in one that is wicked and imperfect, partial and vindictive.” Much of his later work focused on pointing out contradictions he saw between religious texts and the observable world, which he considered to be orderly and knowable by reason. If a perfect god created such a world, then, in Palmer’s view, that god would not interfere in it by performing miracles and changing the course of events. “A wonder-working God,” he said, “who violates his own laws, and acts inconsistently with the principles which he himself has established, is no God at all.”10 The more Palmer reflected on the idea of a perfect god, the more he saw that such a being could not be one that interferes in human affairs.11
Widowed and blinded, Palmer returned to Georgia but struggled to find work, depending on the charity of friends to avoid starving on the street. Previously an avid reader, he had to find new ways to explore and learn ideas, so he took part in and started discussion groups. Through these he became aware of the ideas of Thomas Paine, whose Age of Reason mocked Christian ideology in a way that Palmer had never encountered before. Impressed, Palmer wrote an impassioned article against detractors of Age of Reason titled “Examiners Examined.” Moving to New York City in 1796, he completely abandoned Unitarianism—and Christianity more broadly—in favor of Deism. He even proceeded to set up the Deistical Society of New York, modeled on Fitch’s former society in Philadelphia.
It was during this last decade of Palmer’s life, before his untimely death in 1806, that he developed and expounded the ideas for which he deserves to be known. A life of turmoil and suffering that would have destroyed lesser men instead imbued him with a drive to discover and propagate a system of philosophy based purely on observation of nature. He set about developing this system, encompassing epistemology (theory of knowledge), ethics, and politics, built around the idea that “reason, or the intellectual powers of man, must eventually become both the deposit and the guardian of the rights and happiness of human existence.”12
Opposing Religion in a Christian Culture
Superstition has shed the blood of millions—she must answer for her crimes at the bar of reason, and there she will receive a condemnatory sentence—depart ye cursed and trouble the world no more. —Elihu Palmer13
It’s hard to overstate the bravery of Palmer’s stance against religion. It cost him relationships with valuable connections such as his former friend and associate Jedidiah Morse (who, like Palmer, had been raised in a Calvinist family in Connecticut). Further, blasphemy was still seen as unacceptable by much of the population. This is demonstrated by the fact that Thomas Jefferson—himself a harsh critic of traditional Christianity and a close personal friend of Paine—was, during his presidency, unwilling to publicly endorse Paine due to his radical ideas concerning religion.14 Palmer was brave in so boldly and publicly speaking out against Christianity—which, although commonplace in the 21st century, still led to criminal convictions in the United States as late as the 1920s.15
Palmer pointed out, “Philosophy teaches that belief must be founded upon evidence—Christianity destroys this moral axiom, in the sentence, that he that believeth not shall be damned.”16 That said, he still believed in a creator. He stated throughout his work that the laws of nature imply the existence of a creator who originated them. “The power of thought, directed to the examination of the laws of nature . . . is pressed by an ultimate necessity . . . to the faint conception of an eternal Being, whose perfections guarantee the existence and harmony of the universe.”17 Having grown up surrounded by Christianity and studied theology during his formative years, he may have found it difficult to adopt a completely godless worldview. Nonetheless, in his later life he moved further in that direction, going so far as to question whether the entity that created the universe was a thinking being or simply a “divine life force.”18
Despite his continued belief in a creator, Palmer was firm in his rejection of any system that depended on faith or demanded belief in the word of religious texts. He asked, “What is a book, whether it be denominated sacred or not, unless the human mind is capable of discovering the evidence by which the truth of such book can be substantiated?”19 For Palmer, any philosophic or moral claim had to be provable with evidence and reason.
The Principles of Palmer’s Philosophy
The great moral and political questions which now agitate the world, cannot be settled by an appeal to the authority of law books, theological books, or the decisions of ecclesiastical councils; they rest upon the broad basis of evidence, and by this principle alone they must be determined. —Elihu Palmer20
The fundamental core of Palmer’s philosophy, from which, in his view, the rest of his ideas derive, is his metaphysics—his view of the nature of reality. He held that the universe is governed by immutable laws of nature, which are discoverable and knowable by reason and science.21 He allowed no room for miracles, supernatural beings, or divine intervention.
In epistemology, he held that the only way to understand the world, and thereby derive moral conclusions, is through observation and the application of reason. Palmer’s metaphysics and epistemology combine to form the bedrock of his worldview—that we live in a causal, knowable universe, which we discover and understand by choosing to use our minds and engage with the facts of reality.22
Palmer applied his fundamental principle that reality is knowable only by observation and reasoning to the field of ethics as well, saying, “All morality that is genuine, is drawn from the nature and condition of rational beings. It is calculated to preserve and augment their happiness, to raise and extend the dignity and utility of social existence.”23 Here, Palmer identified a crucial fact: that morality derives from the needs of rational beings, not from scripture or revelation. “There are maxims of a moral nature clearly deducible from the powers and character of man,” he wrote, “which ought to triumph over all the scripture doctrines of predestination, and the metaphysical ingenuity of philosophers.”24
He held that although morality “regards the felicity of others, it also regards the preservation of our own life and happiness.”25 This was particularly insightful for his time, in the midst of the “Second Great Awakening,” a feverish revival of Christianity spurred by the writings of John Wesley, who promoted the idea that people should be utterly devoted to God and sacrifice all they have to help others.26
In regard to the pursuit of one’s own preservation and happiness, Palmer held, “The cultivation of our minds, the improvement of our faculties, and the performance of moral duties . . . [are the means by] which alone man can expect or deserve to enjoy permanent felicity.” Although Palmer didn’t clarify what he meant by “moral duties,” his use of the word “duty” throughout his writing refers to the way that we should act given the facts of nature—properly using our minds to discover truth and acting in accordance with it. He wrote, “The true point of wisdom is to regulate conduct by principle, to control passion by reason, elevate the mind above common prejudices, to discard superstition, to love truth, and practice an incorruptible virtue.”27
On July 4, 1800, Palmer delivered an oration titled “Political Happiness of Nations,” which set out his views on politics. Here again, rational inquiry was the basis of his approach. “The systems of former ages, political, literary, and moral,” he insisted, “ought to be subjected to the most scrutinizing investigation by the intellectual powers of man.” Throughout his work, Palmer did just that, scrutinizing not only ideas but the religious and monarchical systems that dominated history prior to the creation of the United States. Listing a litany of harms to the cause of human welfare and progress, Palmer concluded that such tyrannies are “so full of errors, so glaringly absurd, so oppressive and despotic, that those only who are interested in . . . unrighteous spoils and profits, will ever attempt to vindicate their absurdity.”28 He recognized that despotism and superstition go hand in hand. Together they prevent those who work to discover truth and improve the human condition from doing so:
The antagonists of political, literary, and moral improvement are tyranny, ignorance, and superstition. Tyranny or despotism opposes itself to the progress of political liberty, with the most ferocious and envenomed animosity, with the most savage fury and unrelenting cruelty. Ignorance abhors science and condemns its blessings; it calumniates the character of its advocates, and throws difficulties innumerable in the way of active genius, and the ardent and unremitting efforts of those benevolent philosophers, who have devoted themselves to the best interests of mankind. Superstition is the enemy of all virtue and of all truth. She is resentful and persecuting—the promoter of ignorance and the abettor of tyranny, in all ages.29
Palmer saw that all people must be free to reason with their own minds in order to learn and grow; he rejected the “philosopher king” idea, originated by Plato, that claims only a small elite is capable of the knowledge necessary to pass judgment on philosophic and political questions.30 Philosophy, according to Palmer, “has been, in some measure, diminished by the propagation of an opinion, that there are only a few human beings who are possessed of what is called genius, to the exclusion of all the rest.”31
Looking for a better alternative to the despotic systems throughout history, Palmer readily endorsed the principles of theAmerican founding, calling the founding fathers “the wisest and best of men.”32 He argued that “all men are born free and equal,” a maxim that he advocated more consistently than some of the founders themselves. Regarding the practice of slavery and the status of black people in America, he observed that “both races are intelligent, and . . . the intellectual powers are not in any essential degree dissimilar,” that “improvement makes more difference than nature,” and that slavery is “a complete abandonment of the principle of reciprocal justice.”33
Even more radical for his time, Palmer argued against sexism. Paraphrasing and crediting Nicolas de Condorcet, Palmer wrote, “Among those causes of human improvement . . . that are of most importance to the general welfare, must be included, the total annihilation of the prejudices which have established between the sexes an inequality of rights, fatal even to the party which it favours.”34 This observation that a system of unequal protection of rights is harmful to all parties, not just the direct victims of the injustice—similar to Martin Luther King Jr.’s later formulation that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”—was well ahead of its time.
Palmer argued relentlessly for individual liberty, freedom of speech and of the press, and a republican form of government, and he defended these on moral grounds. “The grand object is Liberty,” he noted, “and the establishment of Equal Rights; and that government which will best secure these blessings is the best government.”35
The incomplete fourth chapter of his unfinished The Political World includes a section attacking those who deny rights, saying, “To say that man has no rights is to affirm at once that he is not a man—that he is not a reasonable being.” He went on to say that those who assert rights for some people but not for others “must bring forward the proof of their opinions.”36 Similarly, he was clear that rights cannot contradict each other and that no man can have the right to harm another: “the exercise of such a pretended right is the absolute destruction of all right, and the first human being who commits violence, has already prepared for himself a hell of retaliation, the justice of which his own mind can never deny.”37
The integrating thread of Palmer’s approach to all aspects of philosophy is applying reason to the facts of reality. This does not mean that his conclusions were invariably correct. Palmer was not a scientist, and perhaps his most notable error was his idea that all matter is, to some extent, “sensate,” meaning capable of feeling (this was his attempt at a rational explanation of consciousness).38 Concluding that all matter is in continual motion, he thought that “all the parts of nature may in time pass through the strictures of animal existence, and partake of the capacity of enjoying pleasure or suffering pain.” He hoped that, once this was widely known, it would give rational minds “instructive lessons of sympathy, justice, and universal benevolence.”39
Palmer’s erroneous scientific conclusions, such as the idea of sensate matter, are understandable given the context of his age. They are not the essence of his philosophy and are not what he should be remembered for. His commitment to the method of reason was his fundamental principle and the shining achievement of his work—his impressive journey from the dogmas of Calvinism to the embrace and valiant defense of reason.
Palmer’s Legacy
After Palmer’s unexpected death in 1806 from pleurisy, many of his fellow freethinkers (those who challenged religion) tried to keep his work alive. Notable among these was British activist Richard Carlile, who republished several of Palmer’s works (along with Paine’s Age of Reason) in the United Kingdom multiple times in the first half of the 19th century. Britain at that time had no legal protection of free speech, and Carlile was tried and jailed for blasphemy in 1819. Unrelenting, he continued to publish the works after his release from prison, further advancing Palmer’s fight for free thought.
Unfortunately, after Carlile’s passing, Palmer’s work was largely forgotten. The “Third Great Awakening” brought another revival of hard-line religion in the United States, and during the American Civil War, philosophic arguments for slavery and against the principle of universal individual rights came to the fore, spurring new counterarguments. Palmer’s writings had enjoyed a loyal following in his day (his periodical Prospect, for instance, was funded directly by a small group of subscribers), but they did not have the staying power to exert the positive influence they otherwise could have had over the trajectory of 19th-century America.
However, the progress of science continued, and its findings gradually chipped away at superstition, much as Palmer had anticipated. Discoveries provided evidence for natural processes explaining the evolution of life on Earth and the formation of the Earth itself, and this made belief in scripture increasingly untenable, creating a culture much more ready for Palmer’s ideas than was his own. This has also meant that some of Palmer’s criticisms of religion now seem obvious and oft-stated, whereas, in his day, they were radical and rare.
During the 20th century, a few writers began to reference Palmer’s works in discussions of 18th-century Deism and historical opposition to Christianity in America. However, not until 1998 would a researcher thoroughly assess his writings—to give them “the fullest examination” as Palmer had asked readers to do. Terry Jonathan Moore’s Neither True Nor Divine: Elihu Palmer’s Opposition to Christianity (1998) and Kirsten Fischer’s American Freethinker: Elihu Palmer and the Struggle for Religious Freedom in the New Nation (2020) have, between them, provided context for understanding Palmer’s life and ideas. However, much work remains to be done in unpacking his philosophy and reintroducing his works to the world. For example, the collected volumes of Prospect have been, until now, available only as scans of the original print edition, damaged and stained. I am currently working to fix that by editing and republishing Prospect online and in print, starting with the first four volumes.
Elihu Palmer bravely advocated a philosophy of reason, based on observation of nature, when religion and superstition dominated the culture. He did this not only in spite of fierce popular resistance but also in defiance of tragic personal circumstances, especially his loss of sight. It is well past time that he is recognized for his noble accomplishments, and those of us who find ourselves struggling to advance radical ideas in a culture antithetical to them can draw comfort and inspiration from his example.