Maybe First Baptist Church is not so powerful...

[Starbuck]

I'm clearly with Ron regarding the effects of enlightenment thinking in freeing western society of the most deleterious effects of religious superstition and injustice. It had its own set of martyrs including Struensee. But religion is more than merely bad science. Check out Rodney Stark's Theory of Religion for a stronger analysis than Freud offered.

[ronchamblin]

Newton?  He was certainly not an atheist. 

"He (Robert Bentley) responded by arguing powerfully that the cosmic order revealed in Newton’s recent “Principia” proved the existence of God.  The was a great comfort to Newton, who had been accused of atheism."

This quote alone, from Will Durant’s “The Age of Louis XIV” suggests that Newton was aware of the fine line between being safe and unsafe regarding the church.  Of course, Newton was a sort of mystic, engaging in volume more of theology than in mechanics.  Much of his time was spent on the bible, which only shows that he was born too early to escape the theological pressure all around him at the time.  Had he been born one-half century later, and still possessed a great mind, I suspect he would have been with my heroes; Voltaire, D’Holbach, Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu, d’Alembert, Paine etc.

The point I intended to make is that he was a catalyst to the 18 century scientific advances, allowing the philosophers and the scientists of that century to more easily engage the sciences.

But no, Newton was not an atheist, which was probably good for his longevity.  His thinking in mathematics and mechanics was enough to put him apart and above.  To also be an atheist would have been too dangerous, and would have complicated his life too much, perhaps even impairing his work in mathematics and mechanics.  Every decade receding in time, that a non-believer or skeptic lived prior to the actual French Revolution would have placed one increasingly in jeopardy of being confronted by the religious authorities.  Newton was unfortunately too far back in time to allow for safe contemplation of anything but pious thoughts.

[ronchamblin]

Quote from Stephendare:  "By the way, just to be nitpicky, I did want to point out that in your discussion of The Enlightenment, you failed to mention a single Enlightenment Era philosophe, either scientist, politician or otherwise."

The names of the philosophs are somewhat important, but if brevity is the goal, not as important as the essence and impact of the group as a whole.  But yes, I agree that the names might occasionally be mentioned in the event someone desires to research.   

[KuroiKetsunoHana]

H.P. Lovecraft was, by today's standards, a horrifyïng racist.  but because it was normal for the time, we can look past that and enjoy his work.  why should Newton and his christianity be any different?

[ronchamblin]

Newton?  He was certainly not an atheist. 

"He (Robert Bentley) responded by arguing powerfully that the cosmic order revealed in Newton’s recent “Principia” proved the existence of God.  The was a great comfort to Newton, who had been accused of atheism."

This quote alone, from Will Durant’s “The Age of Louis XIV” suggests that Newton was aware of the fine line between being safe and unsafe regarding the church.  Of course, Newton was a sort of mystic, engaging in volume more of theology than in mechanics.  Much of his time was spent on the bible, which only shows that he was born too early to escape the theological pressure all around him at the time.  Had he been born one-half century later, and still possessed a great mind, I suspect he would have been with my heroes; Voltaire, D’Holbach, Diderot, Rousseau, Montesquieu, d’Alembert, Paine etc.

The point I intended to make is that he was a catalyst to the 18 century scientific advances, allowing the philosophers and the scientists of that century to more easily engage the sciences.

But no, Newton was not an atheist, which was probably good for his longevity.  His thinking in mathematics and mechanics was enough to put him apart and above.  To also be an atheist would have been too dangerous, and would have complicated his life too much, perhaps even impairing his work in mathematics and mechanics.  Every decade receding in time, that a non-believer or skeptic lived prior to the actual French Revolution would have placed one increasingly in jeopardy of being confronted by the religious authorities.  Newton was unfortunately too far back in time to allow for safe contemplation of anything but pious thoughts.

Quote from Stephendare:  "By the way, just to be nitpicky, I did want to point out that in your discussion of The Enlightenment, you failed to mention a single Enlightenment Era philosophe, either scientist, politician or otherwise."

The names of the philosophs are somewhat important, but if brevity is the goal, not as important as the essence and impact of the group as a whole.  But yes, I agree that the names might occasionally be mentioned in the event someone desires to research.

Trust me that I personally do not need either a list of names or a primer on Enlightenment era literature or belle lettres, I just find it curious that of all the names you mentioned, not a single one of them was involved with it.

A cursory review of the Enlightenment might not reveal some of the names I mentioned, perhaps because many of these gentlemen were atheists or deists, individuals with whom the religious reactionaries of the 19th century had little in common, and toward whom they offered little favor.  Perhaps too, because of the successes of these gentlemen in exposing the absurdities of the bible and religion, they might have been partially removed from some histories by later theologically focused historians.

Voltaire of course was right in the middle of the Enlightenment.  He and D’Alembert, two of the mainstays of the Enlightenment, edited the great Encyclopedie between 1751 and 1765.  Such was the impact of the first two volumes, the Paris Theology faculty, the Sorbonne, condemned the books to be publicly burnt.  After much lobbying, the work was again allowed to continue but, after publishing volumes III through VII, Pope Clement XIII condemned the work. 

See any similarities between the early church/religious entities, and those of current times; that is, as they act to oppose the truths as offered by science?  Creationism anyone?  The thinking of the Middle Ages anyone?  If it was left to the religious enthusiasts over the centuries, if it were not for the brave and determined Enlightenment thinkers, we westerners might be suffering more of the Middle Ages, continued exposures to the cruelties of nature, and perhaps to greater absurdities of even more religions.

I will return soon to discuss the other fellows mentioned above - those whom you’ve suggested were not involved in the Enlightenment - and some others.

[ronchamblin]

for people unacquainted with 'Arianism" or any who might be apt to confuse the term with the Hitlerian Aryanism, here is a servicable definition of the doctrine:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250â€"336), a Christian presbyter in Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of God to the Son of God (Jesus of Nazareth). Arius asserted that the Son of God was a subordinate entity to God the Father. Deemed a heretic by the Ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the regional First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the Ecumenical First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337â€"361) and Valens (364â€"378) were Arians or Semi-Arians.

The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created byâ€"and is therefore distinct fromâ€"God the Father. This belief is grounded in the Gospel of John passage “You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)[3]

Arianism is defined as those teachings attributed to Arius which are in opposition to mainstream Trinitarian Christological doctrine, as determined by the first two Ecumenical Councils and currently maintained by the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, all Reformation-founded Protestant churches (Lutheran, Reformed/Presbyterian, and Anglican), and a large majority of groups founded after the Reformation and calling themselves Protestant (such as Methodist, Baptist, most Pentecostals), with the exception of such groups as Oneness Pentecostals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah's Witnesses, Iglesia ni Cristo and Branhamism.[4] "Arianism" is also often used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christâ€"the Son of God, the Logosâ€"as either a created being (as in Arianism proper and Anomoeanism), or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in Semi-Arianism).

Thanks for the info Stephen.  To most rational thinkers, the above should illustrate the awkwardly fabricated and changing nature of the church dogma and teachings, and therefore the lack of much validity to it.

[ronchamblin]

Stephen Dare Quote: "Trust me that I personally do not need either a list of names or a primer on Enlightenment era literature or belle lettres, I just find it curious that of all the names you mentioned, not a single one of them was involved with it."


Let’s look at Paul Heinrich Dietrich von Holbach, or, Baron d’Holbach, whom you’ve suggested, Stephen, was not a part of the Enlightenment.  Originally from Germany, and reared as a Roman Catholic, he become an influential philosophe in France, a proud atheist, and a frequent contributor of articles in the sciences to the Encyclopedie.

In order to avoid being burned by the ecclesiastics, he frequently wrote under a pseudonym, one being a M. Boulanger, a deceased individual; another being M. Mirabaud.

D’Holbach was well versed in the sciences, and wrote “The System of Nature” and “Christianity Exposed”.  Both were condemned by the Parliament of Paris (1770) as being anti-Christian literature - “impious, blasphemous, and seditious, tending to destroy all idea of divinity, to rouse the people to revolt against religion and government, to overthrow all the principles of public security and morality, and to turn the subjects away from obedience to their sovereign.”  “The books were to be burned, the authors were to be arrested and severely punished.”

Some of his beautiful writing -- “Religion is the art of intoxicating men with enthusiasm (religious fervor), to prevent them from dealing with the evils with which their governors oppress them. .... The art of reigning has become nothing more than that of profiting from the errors and abjection of mind and soul into which superstition has plunged the nations.  .... By means of threatening men with invisible powers, they (church and state) force them to suffer in silence the miseries with which visible powers afflict them.  They are made to hope that if they agree to being unhappy in this world, they will be happy in the next.” 

Keep in mind that he lived in France during the reigns of the kings Louie XV and XVI, a time of oppression and difficulties for the masses.  In spite of his wealth, D’Holbach was sensitive to the plight of the third estate.  His writings greatly influenced the Enlightenment movement, which eventually destroyed the powers of the clergy, the nobility, and the sovereign king Louis XVI, who was of course guillotined in 1793.

Yes, this man was an integral part of the Enlightenment.   

[ronchamblin]

Stephen Dare quotes in blue:



Lets pretend that Newton did not write voluminously on the subject of his religious beliefs.  What on earth makes you think that he was privately an atheist?  Because that would make one of the greatest English thinkers of the 17th Century more similar to a bookshop owner in the new millennium?


Don't you think that it damages your point that so much science could come from such a deeply religious man?  Especially one who did not see the contradiction between science and religion?


Finally, are you of the opinion that the Anglican Church was in the habit of burning heretics with any enthusiasm during this era?


Of course, I’ve never said that he was privately an atheist.  Where did you get that idea? 


Newton apparently, as a consequence of being brainwashed with religious teachings while a child, was inclined to assign to a higher being anything which escaped his understanding.  So.... no I do not consider the fact of his religious leanings and his science thinking, as damaging any of my points. 


I am of the opinion that any church entity, even in England at the time of Newton, was considered to be a possible enemy of anyone who, by way of investigating the sciences, offered opinions or knowledge conflicting directly with the dogma of the church.  Most of the burnings occurred much earlier, but served in memory as reminders of the degree to which the church can exceed reasonable behavior toward those who, even by accident, expose any weaknesses in the church dogma.   

[ronchamblin]

Stephen ....... here you go again.  You have found yourself being shown weak in knowledge and logic.  So you begin to twist, to squirm, to exaggerate, to obscure, to denigrate, to descend to the juvenile...... all because you don't want to take the time to think through the fundamental aspects of the ideas we've engaged.   

You of course will not admit that you were totally unaware of the existence of one of the most important Enlightenment figures.  And there are more.  Would you like for me to "enlighten" you to their existence too.

Your fear of being discovered ignorant about something (and there is certainly nothing wrong with being ignorant) causes you to concentrate on trivial items about Newton.  The subject can be very interesting Stephen.  It can certainly be much more than an argument about certain details about Newton. 

You seem to focus on any "possible" error on my part, and then you spend great energy attempting to expose it, even if the energy involves distortions and outright lies.   

Apparently your wish is to somehow destroy my credibility.  Give it a good try ol chap. 

[ronchamblin]

Caught you red handed Stephen.  Again, there is nothing wrong with being ignorant of something.  I go to the below detail just to prove a point.

At 10:34 a.m.

You mentioned that I had not listed any names of philosophers in the Enlightenment.


At 2:08 p.m.:

I listed several of the philosophers, including d’Holbach.


AT 4:08 p.m., you state:

"Trust me that I personally do not need either a list of names or a primer on Enlightenment era literature or belle lettres, I just find it curious that of all the names you mentioned, not a single one of them was involved with it."

(The important thing here is to notice that the phrase "all of the names you mentioned, not a single one of them was involved with it" proves firstly that you read the names, including d'Holbach, and secondly that you believed at the time that they, including d'Holbach, had nothing to do with the Enlightenment.)


At 10:23 p.m.

I offer, for your enlightenment, a little bio of d’Holbach, as your statement of 4:08 p.m. clearly suggested that you were ignorant of his existence. 


10:45 p. m. 

Crushed to discover that you failed to know about d’Holbach, you accuse me of somehow tricking you by posting the list of names in which I included d’Holbach late in the game.  You forget the statement you made at 4:08, which clearly shows that you read the list, and that your belief at the time was that d’Holbach and the others were not involved in the Enlightenment.


11:34 p.m.

In a frenzy, you read up on d’Holbach, and offer:


“As it happened, I had to take a break in my posting while I went to a meeting with Devlin Mann and then spent some time in transit.


My post, already begun before you posted your short list, was awaiting being posted, and as there had been another post in the meantime, I did not see your list.  It was after all, three days after you began talking about the Enlightenment without accurately mentioning a single person from the era.

As for your somewhat unfortunate assumption about my familiarity or lack thereof with D'Holbach, Im afraid that once again you have spoken a little too soon.  And with characteristic ignorance of the reality...... “

Please Stephen..... there is nothing wrong with being ignorant or wrong about something.  We are all ignorant about certain things.  Your fear of being discovered in error or ignorant is the cause of your consistent inclination to obscure any failings by driving the discussion into the dirt, by constant distortions and frivolities, and even to disparaging and denigrating remarks about your fellow posters ... anything to obscure the truth.

A little sarcasm and frivolities  adds a little humor, and is good for the spirit, but too much impairs productivity and civility.

Love you Stephen.  These French philosophers are phenomenal, some being somewhat obscure.  I will offer some more names later, and post some small bits of their writings....... beautiful material. ..... giving pleasure to the mind.   

 

[ronchamblin]

Quote from Stephen Dare:

As for your somewhat unfortunate assumption about my familiarity or lack thereof with D'Holbach, Im afraid that once again you have spoken a little too soon.  And with characteristic ignorance of the reality.

I first read about the good Baron in a biography about Frederick the Great (a personal hero) in 1983.  Actually several.  The first one, I believe, was by Nancy Mitford, one of my favorite biographers, and a person very well versed in the era.  The second time was the same year in a book called The Soldier Kings, the story of the Hohenzollern family of Prussia. 

If you have read the Mitford biography, perhaps you will recall that she published in great detail, the relationships that Frederick had with the intellectual community of the age, dwelling particularly on his daily luncheons and the various intrigues that resulted.  D'Holbach---as well as every other figure of the continental Enlightenment, especially including Francois Marie Arouette, was prominent in Frederick's life.

So I am sorry to have to correct you in your lumpheaded assumption, but I am afraid that I must."


I don't recall that Frederick ever met d'Holbach, nor that there was any direct correspondence between the two.  Frederick appears to have read and enjoyed many French philosophes, and even visited with some, but when d’Holbach, one of there leaders, attacked the idea of the absolute monarch within “The System of Nature”, Frederick, who of course was an absolute monarch, turned against most philosophes, and certainly against d’Holbach.

Therefore, to say that d’Holbach was “prominent in Frederick’s life”, seems to  stretch somewhat the facts, as the two seem never to have corresponded with each other. 

Also, it seems that Ms. Mitford, in her book titled “Frederick the Great” never once mentioned d’Holbach.  I might have missed a reference of course, and might be corrected, but I couldn’t find one reference to the great atheist/materialist.  The omissions of d'Holbach, which seem to occur too often in historical accounts, might be the result of his using too many aliases to avoid being persecuted, but also perhaps because he was such a proud and profound atheist, a position perhaps often abrasive to some scholars who might be agnostics or only mild atheists.   

Did you really read Mitford's book?

     

[ronchamblin]

Quote from Stephen Dare:

As for your somewhat unfortunate assumption about my familiarity or lack thereof with D'Holbach, Im afraid that once again you have spoken a little too soon.  And with characteristic ignorance of the reality.

I first read about the good Baron in a biography about Frederick the Great (a personal hero) in 1983.  Actually several.  The first one, I believe, was by Nancy Mitford, one of my favorite biographers, and a person very well versed in the era.  The second time was the same year in a book called The Soldier Kings, the story of the Hohenzollern family of Prussia. 

If you have read the Mitford biography, perhaps you will recall that she published in great detail, the relationships that Frederick had with the intellectual community of the age, dwelling particularly on his daily luncheons and the various intrigues that resulted.  D'Holbach---as well as every other figure of the continental Enlightenment, especially including Francois Marie Arouette, was prominent in Frederick's life.

So I am sorry to have to correct you in your lumpheaded assumption, but I am afraid that I must."


Still unable go admit you were wrong ....  first about Mitford even mentioning d'Holbach, and then about d'Holbach being "prominent in Frederick's life."  I suppose the earlier work, which you also claim to have read, will save you from being exposed as being ignorant and, nature forbid, wrong.   

Again Stephen.... there is nothing wrong with being wrong or ignorant.  Admit it sometimes and you will not have to degrade this forum by attempting to trash others.  Why must you act so much like a child.  You've always wanted others to know that you have been around.  Act like it. 

[ronchamblin]

d'Holbach, a noble, would do away with hereditary aristocracy: 

"A body of men that can lay claim to wealth and honor solely though the title of birth, must of necessity serve as a discouragement to the other classes of citizens.  Those who have only ancestors have no right to reward ...  Hereditary nobility can only be regarded as a pernicious abuse, fit only for favoring the indolence ..... and incompetence of one class to the detriment of all.  ... Old title deeds, ancient documents, preserved in medieval castles -- are they to confer upon their inheritors a claim to the most exalted posts in Church and state, in the courts of justice, or in the army, regardless of whether these  inheritors posses the talents necessary for the proper accomplishment of such duties?"

Such is this man's state of mind.  And he is one who has benefited from inheritance.  Perhaps his opposition to the practice is because he perceives too often the incompetence in others established in privileged positions, those who have gained by the same mechanism.

[ronchamblin]

Below is d'Holbach's ethic, formulated in his "Code of Nature".

"Live for yourself and your fellow creatures.  I (nature) approve of your pleasure while they injure neither you nor others, whom I have rendered necessary to your happiness ..... Be just, since justice supports the human race.  Be good, since your goodness will attract every heart to you.  Be indulgent, since you live among beings weak like yourself.  Be modest, as your pride will hurt the self-love of everyone around you.  Pardon injuries, do good to him who injures you, that you may .... gain his friendship.  Be moderate, temperate, and chaste, since lechery, intemperance, and excess will destroy you and make you contemptible."

From an atheist.

[ronchamblin]

Such is the beauty and truth, from my perspective, of d'Holbach's writings, and as the essence within seems to be relevant to our times, I've shown below several paragraphs of the beginning of his "System of Nature: Or, the Laws of the Moral and Physical World." (about 1770).  Although the essence of his atheism does not appear in strength in these early paragraphs, I apologize for any slight offense his words might cause upon some in our local environment.  Such is the beauty, I thought the exposure to it might impress even the believer, those of the faith, who chances upon this forum.

The following is the first paragraph in the preface.  This kind of thinking illustrates one aspect of the essence of the Enlightenment, and prepares the reader for his attacks upon the comfortable and complacent institutions, one being the church, which at the time seemed to encourage and perpetuate ignorance within the masses.  Beautiful... gaze upon it as if was a work of art.

The source of man's unhappiness is his ignorance of Nature. The pertinacity with which he clings to blind opinions imbibed in his infancy, which interweave themselves with his existence, the consequent prejudice that warps his mind, that prevents its expansion, that renders him the slave of fiction, appears to doom him to continual error.

He resembles a child destitute of experience, full of ideal notions: a dangerous leaven mixes itself with all his knowledge: it is of necessity obscure, it is vacillating and false:â€"He takes the tone of his ideas on the authority of others, who are themselves in error, or else have an interest in deceiving him.

To remove this Cimmerian darkness, these barriers to the improvement of his condition; to disentangle him from the clouds of error that envelope him; to guide him out of this Cretan labyrinth, requires the clue of Ariadne, with all the love she could bestow on Theseus. It exacts more than common exertion; it needs a most determined, a most undaunted courageâ€"it is never effected but by a persevering resolution to act, to think for himself; to examine with rigour and impartiality the opinions he has adopted.

He will find that the most noxious weeds have sprung up beside beautiful flowers; entwined themselves around their stems, overshadowed them with an exuberance of foliage, choaked the ground, enfeebled their growth, diminished their petals; dimmed the brilliancy of their colours; that deceived by their apparent freshness of their verdure, by the rapidity of their exfoliation, he has given them cultivation, watered them, nurtured them, when he ought to have plucked out their very roots.

And the first two paragraphs of the first chapter: "Nature and Her Laws".

Man has always deceived himself when he abandoned experience to follow imaginary systems.â€"He is the work of nature.â€"He exists in Nature.â€"He is submitted to the laws of Nature.â€"He cannot deliver himself from them:â€"cannot step beyond them even in thought. It is in vain his mind would spring forward beyond the visible world: direful and imperious necessity ever compels his returnâ€"being formed by Nature, he is circumscribed by her laws; there exists nothing beyond the great whole of which he forms a part, of which he experiences the influence. The beings his fancy pictures as above nature, or distinguished from her, are always chimeras formed after that which he has already seen, but of which it is utterly impossible he should ever form any finished idea, either as to the place they occupy, or their manner of actingâ€"for him there is not, there can be nothing out of that Nature which includes all beings.

Therefore, instead of seeking out of the world he inhabits for beings who can procure him a happiness denied to him by Nature, let him study this Nature, learn her laws, contemplate her energies, observe the immutable rules by which she acts.â€"Let him apply these discoveries to his own felicity, and submit in silence to her precepts, which nothing can alter.â€"Let him cheerfully consent to be ignorant of causes hid from him under the most impenetrable veil.â€"Let him yield to the decrees of a universal power, which can never be brought within his comprehension, nor ever emancipate him from those laws imposed on him by his essence.