The Enlightenment

[latingirl]

I have a friend who thinks that the Enlightenment (in Europe 18th century) was the best thing ever. I tried to argue that it had in fact stifled religious freedom citing the mass scorn for religion and the events of the French Revolution. Two questions:

Is my friend right by saying that the Enlightenment freed humanity?

How is a faithful Catholic supposed to view this era and all the religious people that were murdered during it?

Please help me.

 

[JamestheOlder]

To answer your second question first, which will answer (also) the first question.

As a responsible Catholic. read the history carefully and study the influences on the culture at that time. Make up your own mind; there is no “official” Church position on this era, even though much of what happened severely wounded the Church.

Keep in mind that one of the results of the Enlightenment period was the American Revolution, which was based on Judeo-Christian principles which also fed the Enlightenment.

In the end, as with all history, it requires a serious student to identify what is good, what is evil and what is, essentially, neutral (capitalistic foundations of society, e.g.).

Good hunting.

 

[JimG]

How enlightening was the Reign of Terror in France? Simple nuns were carted off to the guillotine for the crime of being Catholic. Fortunately, that was not an aspect of the Enlightenment which was adopted by the American Revolution.

 

[latingirl]

My friend says that the Enlightenment caused people to learn to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions…

There was so much anti-religiosity in those times I can’t see it. People would put a woman in fine clothes and pretend she was the goddess of reason, they would mock the Catholic faith and Protestantism as well, but mostly the Catholic faith. People began denying the existence of God as they never had before and seeing men just as refined animals.

Even the early days of America had their fair share of violence and anti-Catholicism. Papists were chased out of town, in some places Catholicism and Anglicanism outlawed. maybe I’m only looking at one side of things but the era seemed to rob humanity of its freedom rather than win freedom back.

I admire the scientific advances that took place however people often act as if science was oppressed until that time when it wasn’t.

The whole things just seems fishy.

 

[JimG]

My friend says that the Enlightenment caused people to learn to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions…

There was so much anti-religiosity in those times I can’t see it. People would put a woman in fine clothes and pretend she was the goddess of reason, they would mock the Catholic faith and Protestantism as well, but mostly the Catholic faith. People began denying the existence of God as they never had before and seeing men just as refined animals.

Even the early days of America had their fair share of violence and anti-Catholicism. Papists were chased out of town, in some places Catholicism and Anglicanism outlawed. maybe I’m only looking at one side of things but the era seemed to rob humanity of its freedom rather than win freedom back.

I admire the scientific advances that took place however people often act as if science was oppressed until that time when it wasn’t.

The whole things just seems fishy.

Ah yes, there is nothing so indicative of people thinking for themselves than mobs burning homes, attacking buildings, and killing religious people. A regin of pure reason, for sure.

 

[JamestheOlder]

Many of you have just noted the reasons why it is necessary, no, MANDATORY, for you to read up on a subject before making off-hand remarks.

And, you may also consider, when you throw those stones, some will land in the center of Catholic glass cathedrals, because neither the Church, nor its members (including royalty and bishops), can claim all were “saintly” during this time. You might even find some of those French revoluntionaries whom you malign were educated in Catholic universities, imbued with Catholic ideals, and were later restrained by both the Cardinals and Bishops in their quests for better living conditions.

Read first, please. Then comment. The times then were much different than now, and very much dfferent than the Middle Ages.

Please be careful what you say; it may affect your credibility as a Catholic “historian”.

 

[StarFireKK]

The whole things just seems fishy.

Then read about it. Like most movements it wasn’t all good or all bad. There a elements of the Enlightenment that still exist in society today. Your friend is not wrong that the Enlightenment pushed for people to examine and question the status quo. It certainly had an influence on the rulers of the time. Interestingly though, most of those rulers tried to implement the ideas of the Enlightenment but failed. The philosophers had good ideas but no practical advice on how to make those ideas a reality. It is a fascinating era and will make for very interesting reading.

But before you are too harsh with the violence of the French Revolution. Read about the 30 years war in the 1600’s. That was Christian on Christian. They slaughtered whole towns and sometimes torture them first. If the bloody history of Europe teaches us anything it is that humans are a murdering bunch- no matter how religious or reasonable they may seem.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I have a friend who thinks that the Enlightenment (in Europe 18th century) was the best thing ever. I tried to argue that it had in fact stifled religious freedom citing the mass scorn for religion and the events of the French Revolution. Two questions:

Is my friend right by saying that the Enlightenment freed humanity?

How is a faithful Catholic supposed to view this era and all the religious people that were murdered during it?

Please help me.

There is a temptation to believe that just because Jesus gave the Catholic church spiritual authority, that the leaders of the faith were always honest and good. I think its simply naivety to think that there were no evil popes and bishops in power, or that there was no good reason behind the revolutions that took place. Just because evil things happened in the revolution, this doesn’t mean that people didn’t have good cause to revolt. To some extent, i think the revolution might have been a necessary evil which is possibly the fault of corrupt religious leaders who had circular power in those times. Such people have brought shame to the church and have made its mission very difficult for future leaders and lay persons.

 

[abucs]

Latingirl, we should remember that the French Revolution put to death hundreds of thousands of innocent people and ended up collapsing within a decade under the weight of its own anarchy and incompetance. I can’t think of anything in the medieval world that was more barbaric.

The Enlightenment is of course an academic construct and means many things to many people. For athiests the French Revolution plays a big part because of the anti-religious aspects. There is no agreed dating of the Enlightenment, nor what it consisted of nor what drove it. Personally i think for atheists it is an attempt to connect themselves in history. In the 20th century of academia universities were big on relative truths and multiple narratives. Much of what is spoken about regarding the Enlightenment is sheer fairy tale or to give it a more modern term - academic spin.

 

[StarFireKK]

Latingirl, we should remember that the French Revolution put to death hundreds of thousands of innocent people and ended up collapsing within a decade under the weight of its own anarchy and incompetance. I can’t think of anything in the medieval world that was more barbaric.

The Enlightenment is of course an academic construct and means many things to many people. For athiests the French Revolution plays a big part because of the anti-religious aspects. There is no agreed dating of the Enlightenment, nor what it consisted of nor what drove it. Personally i think for atheists it is an attempt to connect themselves in history. In the 20th century of academia universities were big on relative truths and multiple narratives. Much of what is spoken about regarding the Enlightenment is sheer fairy tale or to give it a more modern term - academic spin.

First, the French Revolution did not occur in medieval Europe.

Second, can you give an example of what is spoken about the Enlightenment that is sheer fairy tale?

 

[abucs]

First, the French Revolution did not occur in medieval Europe.

Second, can you give an example of what is spoken about the Enlightenment that is sheer fairy tale?

First, i did not say the French Revolution was in the Medieval period.

Second, fairy tale number one was that the Enlightenment was based around the French Revolution and a move against Christianity which then precipitated the scientific revolution.

Fairy tale number two, the Enlightenment was based around the French revolution, was against Christianity and is responsible for modern human rights.

Fairy tale number three, the Enlightenment was based around the French Revolution and brought freedoms to the people in contrast to the barbaric Medieval period that was supposed to be ruled by the Church (which is another fairy tale in its own right).

 

[tonyrey]

In the end, as with all history, it requires a serious student to identify what is good, what is evil and what is, essentially, neutral (capitalistic foundations of society, e.g.).

The capitalistic foundations of society are far from neutral if we are to go by the example of the first Christians:

Now all the believers were one in heart and soul, and nobody called any of his possessions his own. Instead, they shared everything they owned.

Acts 4:32

 

[StarFireKK]

First, i did not say the French Revolution was in the Medieval period.

This is true. But your comment was a little unclear about the timing of the Revolution and I wanted to make sure.

Second, fairy tale number one was that the Enlightenment was based around the French Revolution and a move against Christianity which then precipitated the scientific revolution.

Fairy tale number two, the Enlightenment was based around the French revolution, was against Christianity and is responsible for modern human rights.

Fairy tale number three, the Enlightenment was based around the French Revolution and brought freedoms to the people in contrast to the barbaric Medieval period that was supposed to be ruled by the Church (which is another fairy tale in its own right).

I agree with all those statements, but I have never heard an academic making such inaccurate conclusions. I studied the Era for years and never came across those ideas. Are you sure it was an academic that said them and not a student corrupting what he heard? If so, that’s a sorry state for our Universities to be in.

 

[yppop]

Like every other period of history one can find good and evil. How a period is viewed depends on who writes the history. From our history text books— written mostly by elitist academics — the Enlightenment gets favorable marks—the name alone tells us that. Thus we read about the magnificent contributions made by the so-called *philosophes *to the betterment of man. On the other hand, seldom do we read about the opposition. So I thought perhaps some of you might be interested in what Will Durant wrote in of his Story of Civilization, Vol. IX, The Age of Voltaire:

“Elie Catherine Freron was the ablest, bravest, and most learned of the *antiphilosophes *who lost no chance to puncture the sensitive vanity of the philosophes.”

"Almost as damaging to the *philosophes *as Freron’s thirty volumes was one word—the last in the title of Jacob Nicolas Moreau’s satire, *Nouveau Memoire pour server a l’histoire des cacouacs *(1757). The Cacouacs said Moreau, were a species of barely human animals who carried a pouch of poison under their toungues; when they spoke, this venom mingled with their words and polluted all the surrounding air. The clever author quoted passages from Diderot, d’Alembert, Voltaire, and Rousseau; he argued that these men were veritable poisoners of the breath of life, and he charged them with doing evil “ precisely for the pleasure of doing evil.” He called them atheists, anarchists, immoralists, egoists; but it was the term cacouac that painted them most keenly; it suggested the cacophony of quacking ducks, the bedlam of insane prattlers, sometimes (as the word intended) the odor of latrines. Voltaire struggled to reply, but who can refute a smell? "

YPPOP

 

[JamestheOlder]

The capitalistic foundations of society are far from neutral if we are to go by the example of the first Christians:

Acts 4:32

I beg to differ, tonyrey. Communism, as you describe, was a preferable way for the early Christians (The Way) to live, since they believed in the imminent return of the Christ. There were no “future” world plans, except to preach and convert as many as possible to the Faith before Jesus would return.

Even today, communism, as practiced by monasteries and convents and some few other communities (Koinoia in Georgia, for instance) is a wonderful testament to living in Christ-like simplicity, in preparation for the second coming. But communism can be perverted to evil ends. I don’t think you need examples…they continue to this day

Capitalism, also, is neither good nor evil, based on Christ’s teaching. The people who employ capitalistic ideas may turn to evil ways, just as communism was perverted by Marxists, but that does not make that economic system either good or bad. That is what I meant by “neutral”.

Peace.

 

[tonyrey]

I beg to differ, tonyrey. Communism, as you describe, was a preferable way for the early Christians (The Way) to live, since they believed in the imminent return of the Christ. There were no “future” world plans, except to preach and convert as many as possible to the Faith before Jesus would return.

The teaching of Jesus is not concerned with world plans but with the here and now. His primary concern was to condemn evil and injustice in the present not in some nebulous future.

Even today, communism, as practiced by monasteries and convents and some few other communities (Koinoia in Georgia, for instance) is a wonderful testament to living in Christ-like simplicity, in preparation for the second coming. But communism can be perverted to evil ends. I don’t think you need examples…they continue to this day.

Jesus didn’t condemn private property but the injustice and the self-righteousness of the rich and powerful.

Capitalism, also, is neither good nor evil, based on Christ’s teaching. The people who employ capitalistic ideas may turn to evil ways, just as communism was perverted by Marxists, but that does not make that economic system either good or bad. That is what I meant by “neutral”.

Gross inequality is alien to the concept of loving others as you love yourself.

 

[Norminha]

Enlightenment set the stage for Social Darwinism, which is the worse pest any society could face. From the Industrial Era to our days, Darwinism, in all its aspects has dehumanized societies. The Enlightenment developed the infamous “feminist movement” responsible for so many deaths with the selection of the children of God -men deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to die. It was darwinism that gave room for the rising of Nazism -the time when the evil created the “pure race.” In general, nothing good came out of the Enlightenment, but promiscuity and total immorality. Today we fight from the government to the governed the worse evil of all, abortion that shields itself under a false freedom to choose???
Weak minds have been manipulated by phony movements proceeding the so called enlightenment -Genesis alive: “You will become like God.”

 

[abucs]

Hello StarFighter,

unfortunately i heard it myself when i went back to Uni as a mature age student. And it was at a Catholic University in Theology/Education class which is what precipitated my move into apologetics.

Previously i studied science at a secular university and did not hear those sentiments expressed.

I am glad you have studied this period properly and not heard it from your teachers. Perhaps it is a case of academics straying into area of other disciplines and bringing their prejudice with them.

I can tell you hearing such comments blatantly and opening at a Catholic University with the explicit intention of tarnishing Catholicism got me very angry.

 

[Acapiteadcalcem]

My friend says that the Enlightenment caused people to learn to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions…

That was certainly the intention behind the Enlightenment, thought not the outcome. Also, be careful about conflating Enlightenment philosophy with historical events going on in that period. There may be a causal connection between the two, but your friend–and people who make this sort of claim–are typically referring to what Kant called the ‘Copernican revolution’ in philosophy.

It is also important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater: Enlightenment philosophy made many useful contributions to human thought and introduced new methods into philosophy which are still used today.

But it is anachronistic to think that the Enlightenment was born in a bubble, cut off from the medieval and renaissance philosophy that lead up to it. There is an excellent book by James Hannam called ‘God’s Philosophers’ which charts the birth of science in the Middle Ages and the philosophical issues that occupied both medieval and 18th century thinkers. There was in fact a robust dialogue in philosophy in the middle ages, much more than people imagine. The first universities in the world were all Catholic institutions; there is no such thing as a secular or non-Catholic university for nearly 800 years after the founding of the great Catholic houses in the medieval period.

The lofty objectives of the Enlightenment period—which cannot, incidentally, be equated to the rise of science (see Hannam’s book for evidence of this)—failed. By 1790, there was a widespread rejection of Enlightenment thinking by philosophers like Schleiermacher, who were dismayed by the way in which Enlightenment philosophy divorced reason from love, beauty and poetry, and all those things that make existence meaningful. Very shortly after that, the optimism of Enlightenment thinking ushered in a new wave of pessimism and doubt; nihilist philosophers like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche are the direct consequences of Enlightenment thinking that tore revelation apart from human reason.

Your friend does not properly understand what happened in either the medieval period or the Enlightenment period to make what amounts to a rather childish claim that the Enlightenment gave us the freedom to think where this did not exist before.

 

[JamestheOlder]

The teaching of Jesus is not concerned with world plans but with the here and now. His primary concern was to condemn evil and injustice in the present not in some nebulous future.
Jesus didn’t condemn private property but the injustice and the self-righteousness of the rich and powerful.
Gross inequality is alien to the concept of loving others as you love yourself.

Dear tonyrey,

I have no disagreement with the statements you make above. Also, I do not wish to derail this thread by discussing political or economic systems which really have no bearing on the eternal Truth that Jesus taught, nor on what we believe as Christians, nor how we will be judged by the Lord when He returns.

Please let those, who will, continue the good discussion on the enlightenment.

And I will shut up.

Peace.