The enlightenment and creationism

[rez]

Some notes:

By 1790 the population in America was 2,780,000
People at this time were more interested in science and politics than religion (man-centered world, rather then bible-centered) "god" became remote and impersonal. This philosophy can be called "Rationalism"
Prose: dominance of reason...Franklin, Jefferson, Adams.
The enlightenment gave birth to man being politically, socially, and morally perfectible. (concentration of societies and its improvment)

My point:

The 18th century was a time when humans truly seperated from god, however, people still kept religion around. Can the 18th century be considered the time period when man betrayed god and commited the same sin as Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge?

Should the enlightenment be considered mans TRUE seperation from God's grace?

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: rez Some notes: By 1790 the population in America was 2,780,000 People at this time were more interested in science and politics than religion (man-centered world, rather then bible-centered) "god" became remote and impersonal. This philosophy can be called "Rationalism" Prose: dominance of reason...Franklin, Jefferson, Adams. The enlightenment gave birth to man being politically, socially, and morally perfectible. (concentration of societies and its improvment) My point: The 18th century was a time when humans truly seperated from god, however, people still kept religion around. Can the 18th century be considered the time period when man betrayed god and commited the same sin as Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge? Should the enlightenment be considered mans TRUE seperation from God's grace?

Maybe by the numbers. But the most important works were done 2400 years ago, by Aristotle, who based everything he believed solely on reason. Even in the Renaissance, a time when the Roman Catholic Church was at its most corrupt point, a time when pagans were coming out of hiding, and a time when people needed something else to rely on besides the church taxes, men like Wycliffe and Huss denounced every bit of the Church. Petrach, the father of humanism, pretty much began what you have stated. Rousseau and Voltairre expanded on his works and the works of these two Frenchmen can be found throughout our own Constitution.

[xyzer]

Rez...I don't get your point?

The 18th century was a time when humans truly seperated from god, however, people still kept religion around. Can the 18th century be considered the time period when man betrayed god and commited the same sin as Eve eating the apple from the tree of knowledge?

How can religious people separate from God? Religions are a human invention that define God as the answer to the great unknowns of human existence and, in fact, the mysteries of the universe.

Humankind has been betraying its God or Gods since they began to think rationally, have they not?
If you equate our founders referring to God in our founding documents as only keeping religion around, I think you are mistaken. This country was and still is largely religious. Certainly much more so than the former Catholic countries of Europe?

[Starboy]

Quote by: rez Should the enlightenment be considered mans TRUE seperation from God's grace?

I don't know? Let's ask god.

God, if rez if right then post on this thread. If he is wrong then just ignore this.

Starboy

[rez]

Quote by: xyzer Rez...I don't get your point? How can religious people separate from God? Religions are a human invention that define God as the answer to the great unknowns of human existence and, in fact, the mysteries of the universe. Humankind has been betraying its God or Gods since they began to think rationally, have they not? If you equate our founders referring to God in our founding documents as only keeping religion around, I think you are mistaken. This country was and still is largely religious. Certainly much more so than the former Catholic countries of Europe?

Many people in America are FAR more concerned with the HERE AND NOW rather then the HERE AND AFTER. It seems as though creationists feel evolution is the devil and that all who study it will go to HELL.

If someone religious wanted to be consistent with what they preach they would address the situation of how man seperated themselves from god during the 18th century.

[rez]

Quote by: Starboy I don't know? Let's ask god. God, if rez if right then post on this thread. If he is wrong then just ignore this. Starboy

Actually we can ask the creationists on this message board and they will deliever the message of god.

[Starboy]

Quote by: rez Actually we can ask the creationists on this message board and they will deliever the message of god.

Yes, you are right. They appear to know exactly what god is thinking.

Starboy

[Samildanach]

If that is the case God is completely insane.

[samsara15]

I think the Bible clearly supports the argument that God is insane.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 Maybe by the numbers. But the most important works were done 2400 years ago, by Aristotle, who based everything he believed solely on reason. Even in the Renaissance, a time when the Roman Catholic Church was at its most corrupt point, a time when pagans were coming out of hiding, and a time when people needed something else to rely on besides the church taxes, men like Wycliffe and Huss denounced every bit of the Church. Petrach, the father of humanism, pretty much began what you have stated. Rousseau and Voltairre expanded on his works and the works of these two Frenchmen can be found throughout our own Constitution.

Nothing has EVER been based anything solely on reason. All are biased.

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe Nothing has EVER been based anything solely on reason. All are biased.

You forgot to add, All your base are belong to us.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy You forgot to add, All your base are belong to us. Starboy

I am confused beyond words.

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe I am confused beyond words.

I noticed. That was the point.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy I noticed. That was the point. Starboy

did that have anything to do with the discussion? or were you merely trying to point out that my post was stupid?

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe did that have anything to do with the discussion? or were you merely trying to point out that my post was stupid?

What do you think? I must say you are a bit slow on the uptake.

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy What do you think? I must say you are a bit slow on the uptake. Starboy

Quite. Sarcasm doesn't always carry over well in text. Anyhow, I think my point was still valid. One cannot claim the works of anyone to be superior because of being based solely on reason since such has not yet happened...

[Starboy]

Quote by: LetThereBe One cannot claim the works of anyone to be superior because of being based solely on reason since such has not yet happened...

You're getting better but not quite there yet. But I think I understand what you are trying to say. Reason in and of itself is insufficient to behold the "truth" (reality). I agree. However it brings up the age old problem. What is sufficient? What criterion will we use? You will find that over the millenia mankind has tried different criteria. Most of them failures and many just out and out dishonest. But it turns out that one can take a pragmatic approach to the problem.

Starboy

[SoccerfreakAB2]

Quote by: LetThereBe Nothing has EVER been based anything solely on reason. All are biased.

What bias is present? How can reason be biased? Reason can be incorrect, but not biased. It's that mentality that allows you to believe in the Bible, a completely biased book, because you think everything is biased and that makes it ok.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: SoccerfreakAB2 What bias is present? How can reason be biased? Reason can be incorrect, but not biased. It's that mentality that allows you to believe in the Bible, a completely biased book, because you think everything is biased and that makes it ok.

Reason cannot be biased. That is precisely my point. You were arguing that the works of certain philosphers were superior because they were based "solely on reason." What I'm saying, is that their works WERE NOT based solely on reason simply because they, like all humans, were biased. Reason is not biased, they (and therefore their works) are. They were biased because they were raised by particular people who had certain views (whether they kept those views or rejected them is not the point, it still affected their development) and raised in a specific society that held certain principles dear. Of course I am biased towards the Bible, just as you are biased against it. If you were presented with two arguments with equal scientific validity, you would certainly choose an athiestic explanation. Similarly, if presented with statistics or scientific data that could be interpreted a number of ways, you certainly would be inclined to side with a naturalistic explanation. Thats fine. I do the same, just in the other direction. Don't pretend one is logically superior to another because it is "based solely on reason"

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Starboy You're getting better but not quite there yet. But I think I understand what you are trying to say. Reason in and of itself is insufficient to behold the "truth" (reality). I agree. However it brings up the age old problem. What is sufficient? What criterion will we use? You will find that over the millenia mankind has tried different criteria. Most of them failures and many just out and out dishonest. But it turns out that one can take a pragmatic approach to the problem. Starboy

I wasn't trying to equate reason with truth. I was merely suggesting that the inferred superiority of some works does not exist because one CANNOT take a purely pragmatic approach to a problem. Everyone approaches a problem with certain ideas and notions. Only the completely ignorant and uneducated could do so, and most would argue such would be unqualified to approach our hypothetical problem in the first place. Granted, some forms of bias are more obvious and more extreme than others, but I am just again stating that the pure, perfect reason and pragmatism cannot and will not exist, and thus should not be used as an argument for the superiority of certain works. That in itself is not a very pragmatic approach.