• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

jj

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
21,382
The Enlightenment gave us the Scientific Method, and the USA as it stands, successful because of science and the scientific method.

Religious "Principles" gave us the persecution of Gallelio, the Inquisition, and the dark ages.

Guess what the complete majority, the group with control, absolute control, (after all, Delay said so) of this country, wants to do.

In a nutshell, they want to replace Enlightenment principles with Religious principles.

They conciously, willfully, and intentionally want to be traitors to the founders, and drag us all into a dark-ages kind of heck on earth.

Why do so many of you people support this insane, destructive goal?
 
Well....in order to turn this into a productive discussion, it would be helpful if you gave examples of "so many of us supporting this insane, destructive goal."

As it stands now, it seems like a strawman.
There aren't many on this board who support the replacement of Enlightenment principles with those of Religion.
 
Forgive my possible ignorance here, please remember that I'm not American.

Isn't your Bill Of Rights and constitution full of references to God? Weren't the vast majority of your founding fathers and mothers extremely religious people?

I'm not defending the fundies in any way, just trying to make sure I understand where your coming from.
 
da bear said:
Isn't your Bill Of Rights and constitution full of references to God? Weren't the vast majority of your founding fathers and mothers extremely religious people?


unh, I suggest that rather than ask me, who you aren't likely to believe because of what you presently think, you study up on the "Enlightenment Movement".

Look at the words of people like Jefferson (a spiritualist, or perhaps polytheist), Franklin (who used the word God a lot, but you have to read it in context), Tom Payne, Hamilton, ...

Each in their different way, of course.


I'm not defending the fundies in any way, just trying to make sure I understand where your coming from.

Enlightenment, the enlightenment, the theory of the day that was quite strongly responsible for the structure of the constitution and the bill of rights.
 
The problem is that some of us who are secular, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, have nobody to represent us.

I voted for Bush because Kerry failed to provide a clear explanation on how he'd run the country, especially with respect to pursuing terrorists. That, and I don't feel giving a corrupt organization such as the UN, jurisdiction over our defense.

Unfortunately, this is at the expense of dealing with an empowered set of religious nutjobs.
 
jj said:
The Enlightenment gave us the Scientific Method, and the USA as it stands, successful because of science and the scientific method.

Religious "Principles" gave us the persecution of Gallelio, the Inquisition, and the dark ages.

Guess what the complete majority, the group with control, absolute control, (after all, Delay said so) of this country, wants to do.

In a nutshell, they want to replace Enlightenment principles with Religious principles.

They conciously, willfully, and intentionally want to be traitors to the founders, and drag us all into a dark-ages kind of heck on earth.

Why do so many of you people support this insane, destructive goal?

So many of "my" people don't agree with your fundamental assumption, which is that "Enlightenment principles" necessarily conflict with "religious principles".
 
Phrost said:
The problem is that some of us who are secular, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, have nobody to represent us.
<SNIP>

So are we to suppose this was due to the fact that reality doesn't lend itself to a neat pigeonholing of everything into good and bad?

Or did you just not get enough indoctrination to persuade you of the error of your ways?
:p
 
jj said:
Enlightenment, the enlightenment, the theory of the day that was quite strongly responsible for the structure of the constitution and the bill of rights.
Hey dude chill. I know it's sometimes hard for some Americans to believe, but not everyone in the world studies your history in great depth.

Thanks for the prompt to try and learn more though. I've been doing some reading and I'm finding the whole subject very interesting. I didn't realize that people like Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Paine--were powerfully influenced by English and--to a lesser extent--French Enlightenment thought.
 
crimresearch said:
So are we to suppose this was due to the fact that reality doesn't lend itself to a neat pigeonholing of everything into good and bad?


Or racist and not-racist.


Or did you just not get enough indoctrination to persuade you of the error of your ways?
:p

Let's see, now. What's more threatening? Some lunatics in a cave in Pakistan, or our own legislature?

What do you think?
 
Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Ziggurat said:
So many of "my" people don't agree with your fundamental assumption, which is that "Enlightenment principles" necessarily conflict with "religious principles".

Let's see. One is purely secular, by definition, and was part of the move to falsification, testing, verification, and the other is "absolute truth and you're not allowed to test it".

One is provisional, when something new is discovered, it's included, the other is "the final truth and anyone who tries to change it is cursed".

Th eenlightenment was very opposed to religion in government. 'your' people want religion in government.

Any other questions?

The two are diametrically, absolutely, and entirely opposed.
 
jj said:
The Enlightenment gave us the Scientific Method, and the USA as it stands, successful because of science and the scientific method.

Religious "Principles" gave us the persecution of Gallelio, the Inquisition, and the dark ages.


Which one came up with the atomic bomb?
 
Phrost said:
The problem is that some of us who are secular, fiscally conservative but socially liberal, have nobody to represent us.

I voted for Bush because Kerry failed to provide a clear explanation on how he'd run the country, especially with respect to pursuing terrorists. That, and I don't feel giving a corrupt organization such as the UN, jurisdiction over our defense.

Unfortunately, this is at the expense of dealing with an empowered set of religious nutjobs.

In what way has Bush been clear on how he would pursue terrorists?
 
I think that the OP is guilty of cherry-picking and is completely ignoring the contribution of religion in the promotion of learning throughout the ages including:

- The preservation, by Imams of the contents of the great classical libraries
- The foundation of universities throughout the world
- Supporting the great scientists of the early middle ages (e.g. Bacon)
- Being the primary source of literate people in the West

It's only when society advanced sufficiently that "enlightened" poeple could earn a living in the open market that religious organisations stopped being the pre-eminent supporter of science.

Even as late as the 19th century, many prominent scientists and naturalists were also employed by the church.

What I beleive you're railing against is the periodic railing of religious organisations against progress. This is not universal by any means and does tend to correct itself after a time. This also mirrors general public opinion which swings back and forth on the subject of enlightenment.
 
The Don said:

Even as late as the 19th century, many prominent scientists and naturalists were also employed by the church.

The vatican still funds quite a good observitry.
 
jj said:


Religious "Principles" gave us the persecution of Gallelio,

No that was internal church politics

the Inquisition,

Which pales into significance besides the work of starlin

and the dark ages.

I seem to recall that was coused by the fall of the roman empire in the west and the catholic church was one of the few things which kept thing like reading a writeing alive.
 
jj said:
The Enlightenment gave us the Scientific Method, and the USA as it stands, successful because of science and the scientific method.

Religious "Principles" gave us the persecution of Gallelio, the Inquisition, and the dark ages.

Guess what the complete majority, the group with control, absolute control, (after all, Delay said so) of this country, wants to do.

In a nutshell, they want to replace Enlightenment principles with Religious principles.

They conciously, willfully, and intentionally want to be traitors to the founders, and drag us all into a dark-ages kind of heck on earth.

Why do so many of you people support this insane, destructive goal?

I would hate to live inside the black and white world that is inside your head, jj. And here we have another example. Science can do no wrong, religion can do no good.

You are as bad as a religious nut who sarcastically thanks science for giving us Mutual Assured Destruction.

You spoke of our founders. It seems to be beyond your belief, and therefore your understanding, that they were both Enlightened and religious (of the strictest kind), and that this combination created the greatest nation in the history of the world. Let's do a quick review:

In the English colonies of the North, more generally known as the New England states,5 the two or three main ideas that now . constitute the basis of the social theory of the United States were first combined. The principles of New England spread at first to the neighboring states; they then passed successively to the more distant ones; and at last, if I may so speak, they interpenetrated the whole confederation. They now extend their influence beyond its limits, over the whole American world. The civilization of New England has been like a beacon lit upon a hill, which, after it has diffused its warmth immediately around it, also tinges the distant horizon with its glow.


The foundation of New England was a novel spectacle, and all the circumstances attending it were singular and original. Nearly all colonies have been first inhabited either by men without education and without resources, driven by their poverty and their misconduct from the land which gave them birth, or by speculators and adventurers greedy of gain. Some settlements cannot even boast so honorable an origin; Santo Domingo was founded by buccaneers; and at the present day the criminal courts of England supply the population of Australia.


The settlers who established themselves on the shores of New England all belonged to the more independent classes of their native country. Their union on the soil of America at once presented the singular phenomenon of a society containing neither lords nor common people, and we may almost say neither rich nor poor. These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of our own time All, perhaps without a single exception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents and their acquirements. The other colonies had been founded by adventurers without families; the immigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality; they landed on the desert coast accompanied by their wives and children. But what especially distinguished them from all others was the aim of their undertaking. They had not been obliged by necessity to leave their country; the social position they abandoned was one to be regretted, and their means of subsistence were certain. Nor did they cross the Atlantic to improve their situation or to increase their wealth; it was a purely intellectual craving that called them from the comforts of their former homes; and in facing the inevitable . sufferings of exile their object was the triumph of an idea.


The immigrants, or, as they deservedly styled themselves, the Pilgrims, belonged to that English sect the austerity of whose principles had acquired for them the name of Puritans. Puritanism was not merely a religious doctrine, but corresponded in many points with the most absolute democratic and republican theories. It was this tendency that had aroused its most dangerous adversaries. Persecuted by the government of the mother country, and disgusted by the habits of a society which the rigor of their own principles condemned, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world where they could live according to their own opinions and worship God in freedom.

Alexis de Tocqueville.

Enlightenment and religious principles. That's the real America, jj. Not as you stated, Elightenment versus religious principles.
 
jj, I would say that the problem with your "group with control, absolute control", whatever that is (just one paranoic step from the ominous "Them"), is not the replacement of Enlightenment by an abundance of religious principles, as you stated. It is an absence or shortage of Enlightenment to serve in balance with religious principles.
 
da bear said:
Forgive my possible ignorance here, please remember that I'm not American.

Isn't your Bill Of Rights and constitution full of references to God? Weren't the vast majority of your founding fathers and mothers extremely religious people?

I'm not defending the fundies in any way, just trying to make sure I understand where your coming from.

Actually "God" is pretty much absent from the entire Constitution and Bill o Rights.

Now if the founders planned for a Christian nation, wouldnt "God" and "Jesus" show up on every paragraph?? Im sure Jerry Faldwell woudve written the thing differently.
 
jj said:
Let's see, now. What's more threatening? Some lunatics in a cave in Pakistan, or our own legislature?

What do you think?

Those lunatics used to be in a cave in Afghanistan. And up until September 12, 2001, they were the bigger threat. And you see it as a bad thing they aren't any more?
 

Back
Top Bottom