Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

[TragicMonkey]

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.

Falwell wouldn't be caught dead in a room with a bunch of men in ponytails and powdered wigs, much less signing documents with them.

The Enlightenment was the celebration of the art of reason. Which led some to deism, some to atheism, and some to religion. It laid the foundation of both the modern world's secularism AND tempered some versions of Christianity.

Reason doesn't automatically equal irreligion, then or now.

 

[Dorian Gray]

I thought the hockey season would have started by now, but I guess the season is doomed. Maybe after the all-star break.

 

[Jocko]

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.

Excellent post, Don. I think JJ is up in arms about a perceived power-grab by the fundie right, moral majority, call them what you will. But in the grand scheme, this is no schism, simply a hiccup. The Falwells and Swaggarts will be forgotten and their movements will evolve into more practical entities. They always do. Even the Pope of today bears no resemblance to the monarchical popes of the past. The Vatican has become more humanistic, if you can believe that.

As far as the OP goes, morality is founded in religion (consciously or not). Secular humanism without conscience is what gives us the atom bomb, a fossil-fuel driven economy and botox. I don't see how they seriously conflict at all except in isolated isssues like stem cell research, etc. On the whole I think they complement each other well.

 

[Jocko]

Falwell wouldn't be caught dead in a room with a bunch of men in ponytails and powdered wigs, much less signing documents with them.

The Enlightenment was the celebration of the art of reason. Which led some to deism, some to atheism, and some to religion. It laid the foundation of both the modern world's secularism AND tempered some versions of Christianity.

Reason doesn't automatically equal irreligion, then or now.

Nor does piety necessarily equate to irrationality. Thanks for the image of a red-faced Falwell, btw. Made my day.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

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?

No on both counts. The constitution contains a single reference to 'our creator' in the preamble. Other than that the subject of God and religion never comes up in the COnstitution except in the part of the bill of rights that specifies that Congress cannot establish a religion.

Our founding fathers were NOT overwhelmingly religious, despite what the fundies in this country try to convince people. They ran the gamut from very religious to agnostics (no full blown atheists that I know of, admittedly) with many of them being Deists.

Not knocking you, but I am curious where you got the impression you did.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Oops, brainfarted and mentally mixed up the preable to the constitution witht he beginning of the Declaration of Independance. So there is even less reference to God in the constitution than I mention

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. 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".

I'm not sure what religions you've been hanging around, but where I come from, religious principles that you might associate with "absolute truth" aren't forbiden from being tested, they're simply not testable to begin with (such as the existence of heaven). That's quite unscientific, but it's also NOT anti-scientific. Perhaps the distinction is lost on you, but it's real. The fact that you not only can't reconcile the two, but can't even see how someone else could, is your own mental shortcoming. Projecting this onto others is going to lead you to make incorrect conclusions (such as the idea that nobody does reconcile the two, when there are clearly people who do), which is rather ironic since you're supposedly advocating adherence to observable reality.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Re: Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Neither - humans did.

So then when jj says:

"The Enlightenment gave us the Scientific Method, and the USA as it stands, successful because of science and the scientific method."

and

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

would you agree that that is wrong and "humans did" is a more accurate explanation for the cause of thise things? Why/why not?

 

[The Don]

Excellent post, Don. I think JJ is up in arms about a perceived power-grab by the fundie right, moral majority, call them what you will. But in the grand scheme, this is no schism, simply a hiccup. The Falwells and Swaggarts will be forgotten and their movements will evolve into more practical entities. They always do. Even the Pope of today bears no resemblance to the monarchical popes of the past. The Vatican has become more humanistic, if you can believe that.

Which does indeed make it less bad in that regard though I DO have a problem with the Vatican's approach to contraceptives, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa

As far as the OP goes, morality is founded in religion (consciously or not). Secular humanism without conscience is what gives us the atom bomb, a fossil-fuel driven economy and botox. I don't see how they seriously conflict at all except in isolated isssues like stem cell research, etc. On the whole I think they complement each other well.

IMO I would turn it around and say that the rules of all religions are based to some extent on the basic rules of secular humanism. Without having access to religion, many social animals have managed to create sets of "morals" to live by. I do concede that religion/morality could be a chicken/egg problem.

 

[crimresearch]

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.

When a poster asks about the social artifacts and culture of another country in a manner that indicates a genuine interest ( as in the above example), it is often appreciated as a refreshing change.

Since Ny has pointed out the absence of such God language, I would like to join him in politely asking where indeed such perceptions come from.

Is it from current events as reported in the media, like the pre and post election rhetoric?
Or is it perhaps actually taught in the schools that America was founded on religiously oriented documents?

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

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.

Except what you're failing to remember is that (1) the decline and fall of the Roman Empire is in many ways directly a result of its adoption of Christianity as a state religion, and (2) they didn't really do that in large part (far more important things were stored by the Muslim governments), and (3) Christianity is in large part responsible for the (a) cessation of scientific (or philosophical) work in the pre-fall Empire, and (b) the loss of massive amounts of the work that had been done up till then.

Pointing out that they saved a bunch of books - the vast majority of which were basically hagiographies and the occasional church history - doesn't exactly prove them to be the critical saviors of the western intellectual tradition.

 

[jj]

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?

No, I see it as a bad thing that now our legislature is a worse threat.

I'd be content to see the lunatics in the cave be "no threat at all".

You're guilty of so many deliberately misleading bits of rhetoric here that I hardly know where to start on your offensive little bit of propaganda. It's shameful that you even said it.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

Which one came up with the atomic bomb? [/B]

Which one used it?

 

[jj]

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:


Your claim is pure nonsense, and is simply attempting to avoid the facts.


- The preservation, by Imams of the contents of the great classical libraries


You mean, after the onslaught of radical islam, the burning of the great classical books, etc. The burning, also, of the mathematics invented first by the Moorish world that is evident in their archetecture and civil engineering. Algebra was preserved, not by the action of Islam but by westerners who discovered it. That's sad.


- The foundation of universities throughout the world


And their destruction.


- Supporting the great scientists of the early middle ages (e.g. Bacon)


And then the destruction of their work as the religion radicalized.


- Being the primary source of literate people in the West


See above.


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.


I'm sorry, you have presented no evidence to support this claim. There is, however, a humongous pile of evidence showing how the church attempted to cripple or hide science. Even a study of the reactions to Semmelweis are a good example.


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


You presume this was a good thing.


What I beleive you're railing against is the periodic railing of religious organisations against progress.


In history, I'd say the "permanant opposition of churches to progress" would be a better statement. When we look at how religion was perverted by Constantine to support the "divine right of kings", how that idea supported the dark-ages slavery, the opposition to the rise of the middle class, how it's being used now to oppose the middle class, etc, I think it's obvious.

Note, I don't say ALL religious people are like this, but if you look at how Catholicism is working right now, you have a terrible, terrible example. Just look how the Cardinal in the Boston area is behaving. He's using the excuse of the child-abuse lawsuits to close all of the "liberal" churches, even though they have most of the churchgoers, splitting up those churches and sending those people to the most repressive churches he can find. That's one example, yes, but how that relates to Christian principles I simply can't fathom.


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.

That I agree with. Problem is, right now we're in a swing to the ignorant side well in excess of anything seen in the late 19th or all of the 20th centuries. This is attacking the very basis of how this country worked and why it got to be great.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

No that was internal church politics


In other words, religion. Thanks.


Which pales into significance besides the work of starlin


The dark ages pales next to Stalin? 1000 years of disease and famine? Sorry, no. This is not to say that Stalin, who was, after all, pushing a different religion, that of "communist thought", was any good, he obviously was a vicious psychopath.


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.

You mean the influence of the church that greatly aided and abetted the fall? The splitting into two empires along religious lines? Etc.

Sorry, no. Religion was an intrinsic cause of the fall. Only one, just like it's only one here, right now. The rabid anti-intellectual, anti-knowledge "majority", brought to that position by the religious activists of the present, is another such force, and one that is perhaps even more dangerous, because even the church can't control it.

Look at the call to Farenheit 451 down south, the "burn the books that mention gays" law the guy is trying to pass.

 

[CFLarsen]

Enlightenment and religious principles. That's the real America, jj. Not as you stated, Elightenment versus religious principles.

Yet, your American rights - where everything starts - are endowed you by your Creator.

 

[jj]

Re: Re: Enlightenment vs. Religious Principles

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.


That is a dishonest, unethical straw man strictly of your own creation.

Science corrects its mistakes. Religion does not.

It was utterly reprehensible and dishonest of you to engage in that willful, misleading attack.

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:


Really? Payne was religions of the "strictest kind"? Do tell.


Alexis de Tocqueville.

Enlightenment and religious principles. That's the real America, jj. Not as you stated, Elightenment versus religious principles.

The enlightenment was what SEPARATED the religious principles from the government, Luke. Argue all you want, that's the facts.

It's not necessary for it to be 'vs.' but that's what's happening at present.

It would be good of you to stop lying about my positions, by the way. Is that a good Christian way to act?

 

[Luke T.]

No, I see it as a bad thing that now our legislature is a worse threat.

I'd be content to see the lunatics in the cave be "no threat at all".

You're guilty of so many deliberately misleading bits of rhetoric here that I hardly know where to start on your offensive little bit of propaganda. It's shameful that you even said it.

You set the ground rules by establishing the threats of terrorists and legislatures relative to each other, and therefore set yourself up with the consequences of the the errors in your logic for having done so.

I do not disagree that the legislative threat has increased in the last few years. But in the context of your playground, the degree appears to be substantially more only because of the decrease of the terrorist threat.

The difference between the lunatics in Afghanistan and the lunatics in our legislature is that we can destroy the legislative lunatics with voting booths and courts. We are therefore not as powerless against the legislature as we are against terrorists.

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

May I remind you that the Madrid bomb came after these lunatic cavemen had been defeated in Afghanistan?

 

[jj]

As far as the OP goes, morality is founded in religion (consciously or not).


Which does not preclude secular ethics in any way.


Secular humanism without conscience is what gives us the atom bomb,


A lie, outright lie.


a fossil-fuel driven economy and botox. I don't see how they seriously conflict at all except in isolated isssues like stem cell research, etc. On the whole I think they complement each other well.

Let's see, we have the "creation science" brigade. We have the people claiming that the universe is 6000 years old. We have the people arguing "every sperm is sacred", we have people denying the facts about conception, and how most fertilized ovums die naturally, etc. The list of how these things conflict is nearly endless.

Let's look (the new Skeptic Magazine) has a great article on this, at how "keep on message" is applied to administration scientists, who are told that either they will LIE OUTRIGHT to "keep on message" or they will be fired.

Sorry, that's not pro-science, that's exactly, precisely anti-science, and sets the stage for "the scientists lied" accusations by the same people who attempted to force those lies.