Sells, I am no historian of science but what you describe as the Newton/Locke vs Descartes/Leibniz debate seems to correspond to two (complementary) "pillars" of modern scientific research: observation, experimentation, data collection on one hand, and speculation, theory (which, at least in physics, is mostly in mathematical language, through mathematical models) on the other hand.

The one is almost useless without the other, although pure (speculative) mathematics has also its merits, see Eugene Wigner's often quoted "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics." So although Newton/Locke seems to have prevailed over Descartes/Leibnitz, it is not a clear cut victory: much of contemporary cosmology and theoretical physics is pure speculation (string theory, multiverse etc.), where the plausibility criteria are only mathematical consistency and compatibility with earlier well established theories (TOE) since direct observational and experimental verification is impossible because of the very nature of phenomena studied/described.

Also Leibniz's relational theory of space - rather than Newton's "absolute container" theory, expanded upon by Kant, as I understand it - turned out to be more compatible with Einstein's model(s) of space-time.

George.
Ah the modesty. “I am no historian of science but” . Your contribution to this site has been remarkable particularly your introduction of the concept the introduction of "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics which had me thinking for weeks.

A question to our erudite contributors.

In reading the Translator's Introduction of Aristotle's Politics ( Penguin Classics) he talks of the staff of lecturers assisting Aristotle at the Lyceum, and that were expected to teach a variety of subjects; theoretical and practical. He related the distinction between theoretike and praktike was not at all as between theory and practice, but rather two separate branches of knowledge. The former ( theology, metaphysics, astronomy, mathematics, biology, botany, meteorology) being truly philosophical and truly scientific being based on theoria; observation plus contemplation.

What role is there for contemplation in a world where meaning and purpose are detached from measurable substance. Is contemplation merely charged up observation for us to be enlightened with facts?

waterboy,

I get the impression we're using different meanings of "The Church"; mine being focuses on the politicized administration while yours is inclusive of the wider community. My points on the church apply to the unions as well. The general notion of people working together for better conditions (or to share their faith) is good. However once that evolved into a centralised, political hierarchy I think both the church and the unions started to lose their way. The powers lost touch with the need for the masses to play a role and started dictating from above how things should run. The workers lost the ability to influence their conditions and the Christians no longer gained the 'spiritual nourishment' from challenging and hence better understanding the foundations of their religion. In essence, the focus shifted to the dogmatic 'what' from the enlightening 'why?'.

In the same way Discartes and Locke were critical of their assumptions, so too I think Christians need to be critical of their's. This includes their devotion to the political hierarchy of the church. Consider the epistemology of morality; what source of extra knowledge do the priest and bishops have that makes their moral judgment superior? I would consider it unwise to commit to a faith without understanding the meaning and it's impact on my morality. I would consider it folly indeed to grant another human the power to decide for me, what is right and what is wrong.

George,

I'm not attempting to defend the Stalinist regime, however I'm curious why you consider blind devotion to one organisation as superior to blind devotion to another. Given the chance, the Church would be just as draconian and dictatorial as the Stalinists. One only has to look at the influence the Catholic Church has on sex/abortion laws and education in African and south east Asian Christian countries.

I dare say that your religious upbringing, through discussions with your father, has lead to your apparent balanced understanding of your faith, rather than the extreme fundamentalist style that a more 'organised' force-fed education may have produced.

Not having had access to this thread for the past few days I am entering at a point where the discussion, as discussions tend to do, has veered a little from the article. However, it is the article itself I wish to address.

First: the term "The Enlightenment" is one (along with "The Dark Ages" et al) no longer used by historians. The tendency is to refer more specifically to chronology i.e. The Seventeenth Century, the Eighteenth Century etc.

It would be disingenuous to pretend ignorance of the term but I think you will find that it did not encompass the 16th century.

The period from the seventeenth century onwards is termed the Early Modern era...and yes, the persons whom you mention played a large part in the nomenclature of the era.

However, to suggest that theology took a back seat during this period, and that historians work in some kind of vacuum, all unaware of the theological underpinnings to the development of society, is not simply erroneous but shows an ignorance of which the kindest interpretation would be that of naivete. The unkindest interpretation would be of arrogance.

The theological debates and upheavals of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were monumental. These did not spring up from the discussions by the 10-15% of the educated elite who could read the works of Hobbes, Locke, Diderot, Descartes etc. etc., but began when a former mistress of Henry the Eighth introduced her sister to Court in England a century before. Societal, philosophical and theological changes were symbiotic.

As to the world getting along quite nicely without John Locke...I imagine that millions of Americans throughout the centuries would disagree wholeheartedly!

Desipis,
it was not my intention to contradict you, only to point to a situation where your sweeping statements would not apply. Please quote me exactly, where I said that "blind devotion to one organisation (apparently the RC Church) is superior to blind devotion to another (apparently a Communist Party)".

I do not know what was your experience with the RC Church that is comparable with the situation I was trying to describe, but if I knew it would help me to understand your need to make such sweeping accusations. Can you name a twentieth century Catholic country where it was because of the hierarchy's totalitarian power that one had to wait 20 years (as was my case) to find an opportunity to escape that country?

The sentence "given the chance, the Church would be just as draconian and dictatorial as the Stalinists" is, of course, unverifiable, highly offensive and disrespectful to the tens of millions of Communism's victims, and can appeal only to people with an a priori bias: I see it as a statement about you, not about Stalinism (which you almost certainly never experienced) or the Church.

In countries like Australia the RC Church lobbies for its view of what is good for the society. Other groups have other lobbyists with their ideas, some with a weaker some with a stronger influence than the Church. You are right, that her teaching about sex needs modernisation (hopefully "Deus Caritas Est" was a start), and that they had a particularly strong influence "on sex/abortion laws and education in African and south east Asian Christian countries".

That was not the case in Europe and Australia, the result being that, as it appears, Europe (and perhaps also Australia) is looking towards a future with fewer secular humanists and Christians (both of the church going and wishy-washy types) and more religious, or at least cultural, Muslims. This is an unintended consequence of the Catholic as well as secular lobbyists' visions some decades ago. A demographic fact which the Europeans have to accept and adjust to, whether they like it or not.