Hi Sells,

I must say that you writing is sort of growing on me. I still disagree with some of your basic assumptions (and the conclusions you draw from them), but your work makes me think about and question my own assumptions – and what more could I ask, really?

Now, I’m certainly not qualified in theology, philosophy, or history (although I’m an enthusiastic amateur in all three areas), so I feel a bit out of depth in this discussion. However, I thought I might mention a book I’ve just finished reading, which I think relates to your piece about the enlightenment and secularisation. Its called “The death of Christian Britain” by Callum Brown. The book suggests that contrary to the common idea that religion has been in steady decline since the Enlightenment, in fact public religiosity remained remarkably strong right through to the 1950s. It was sometime in the 1960s that religion went into a sudden decline in Britain (and he mentions in passing that similar trends are evident in other nations such as Australia).

Brown deploys an impressive array of evidence to support his hypothesis (at least it impressed the hell out of this bumbling amateur), and although I found the book heavy going, there’s some good stuff buried amongst the “cultural studies” jargon.

I just thought that if you haven’t come across this book already, you might find it interesting.

Cheers!

Rhys.

Romany.

Thanks for your clarification of the names of eras.
You said:

“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,”

I certainly did not suggest that theology took a back seat in the early modern period, in fact it was all about theology. All of the major players, at least in England were deeply involved. I was speaking in ignorance about Australian academe but I do wonder about the neglect of a sympathetic study of theology in our universities and how this affects our understanding of the history of Europe.

Rhys.
I have not come across that book. There is a danger of talking so blankly about the rise an fall of religion, that is why I do not trust sociological studies to tell me anything interesting about it. I have argued before that Christianity is not a religion but in fact the denial of all religion even thought it looks like a religion smells like a religion and quacks like a religion.

George.
Your post about the Leibniz/ Clarke debate got me thinking about the application of mathematics in science. Being bad or badly taught at maths I opted for biology, the soft option. In biology you are dealing with matter that has been the subject of evolution for millions of years so the complexity is astounding. In this case maths is of little use except in very defined and simple situations or in statistical studies. Some years ago there was much effort in producing mathematical models of the vibration of the Organ of Corti mostly to little profit. Then we discovered that the outer hair cells acted like mechanical amplifiers, a completely unexpected outcome. My point is that maths is central to physics but not so central in the biological sciences

George,

I got a bit carried away with my comparison between the church and the communist party, and I apologize if I offended anyone. What I was trying to point out was the similarities between the two, in that they are both organisation trying to 'help' society based on their own idealogical dogmatic view of the world. It's not an accusation against individuals within the church, but an observation of the inevitable human behavior within any power structure.

You're quite right, that for an individual seeking to practice Christianity the centralized Church provided a 'safe' environment to do so. However I also think it's worth noting that it was the political power of the church that communists fear and is the primary cause of their religious intolerance.

As to your limitation to the 20th century, looking back further in history you'll find plenty of atrocities committed in the name of the Church, using the same theological basis as exists today. The primary difference being not a change in the religion, but in the 'enlightenment' of society. It's my understanding that it is this erosion of power and challenge to the Church that enabled people to challenge the religion itself during the social change of the 60's, that Rhys refers to.

As for my own history with the church, I've grown up in Australia and enjoyed the life in 'the lucky country'. What I consider one of the few negative impacts on my childhood was the influence of the church on the adults (parents, teachers, etc) that I had contact with. Being a free thinking and bright child I often challenged the cause of the church and as a result was punished and called, quite literally, 'evil'. In addition there's the thousands of hours of education 'wasted' on religious indoctrination, rather than invested in skills and knowledge based in reality or spent simply enjoying childhood.

Sells,

I've heard the Atheism is a religion argument before, however I've never heard the "Christianity isn't" line. I might have to see if I can find the article in which you bring that up.

Sells, o.k., I stand corrected. However, I still have difficulty with your wish for a "sympathetic" study of theology in relation to the Early Modern period.

To understand the philosophy and theology of the era it is necessary to have cognizance of that which went before and shaped the age. Thus the study of the works of Martin Luther, Calvin, John Knox, Wyclif etc.is intrinsic. The great transubstatiation debate of the sixteenth century,The Council of Trent, Ignatius and the Jesuits - these and many more aspects of theology shaped thought.

Although many lay people regard the Witchcraft trials as an obscure footnote in history the decimation brought about by this interpretation of theology helped changed the shape of Europe: - famously, in Germany, entire villages were left with no female inhabitants. Add to this the Inquisition and one begins to see how the age gave rise to different ideologies.

Then, one must come to grips with the Protestant, Anglican, Puritan, Methodist et.al. dialogues on-going throughout the Seventeenth century.

To have a "sympathetic" approach to theology and its teachings therefore throws up more questions: to which branch of theology? Do we accept one branch as being "correct" and all the others as "wrong"? Do we become sympathetic to Western or Eastern theology (remember the Catholic Church in Greece, Turkey and other Eastern countries still held great sway). Do we ourselves take sides in the multiple debates that framed the age? And, if so, how does this impinge upon our studies in relation to all other points of view.

I vehemetly disagree that a "sympathetic" study of theology in this era is either desirable or, indeed, possible. The best any historian can do is to gain understanding of these differing ideologies and stay firmly subjective.

Coming in on this debate at a late stage in order to follow-up Desipis who wrote:
"The "Enlightenment" is part of the age a reason, an age where we learned to challenge all and any assumptions."

Actually some centuries before the Enlightenment the Greeks (ancient) were hard at it challenging "all and any assumptions" in their day and age, and with an unsurpassed intellectual rigour.

Particularly interesting is how the Greeks grappled with the problem of getting a handle on reality. They realised that methodologies such as "logic" are useless without fixed points of reference. In other words, "use of reason" cannot function in a vacuum, there needs to be a conceptual infrastructure already present.

For example, the much-vaunted "rationality" and "scientific method" are useless if they are not rooted in honesty and integrity, which in themselves are contingent upon a moral and stable society. Try basing the "use of reason" on the shifting sands of situation ethics and see where you end up.

Examples abound in the scientific world of reason being used without reference to moral values. Statistics can be made to prove anything you want, all in the name of reason. Data can be fabricated to "prove" the theory of evolution such as in the case of Piltdown man. Unspeakably inhumane experiments can be carried out on human beings to further aims of medical science when the Hippocratic oath has been abandoned. Weapons can be invented with the capacity to maim which go far beyond the legitimate excuse of self-defence. The list goes on and on.

Ironically, certain styles of education that evolved from the Enlightenment and which are still very much current at the present time are responsible for a lopsided emphasis on "rationality" and "facts" to the detriment of character-building. Such a minimalist and utilitarian approach has ensured that Greek (and to a lesser extent Latin) has been banished to the extreme fringes of education, and the multi-faceted richness of Greek writings with their deep exploration of the human person are a closed book for the masses. Great pity.
(to be continued)

(continued)
The following quote that I came across quite by coincidence seems apposite to the topic. Unfortunately at this stage I have not been able to find the name of the author.
Entitled The Sleep of Reason it says:
"Modernity speaks of the eighteenth century Enlightenment as the “Age of Reason”. But proponents of the Enlightenment were often dubious about the ability of the human mind to understand man and nature and more interested in limiting the scope of rational activity than increasing it. Much of their labor ended by declaring the universe to be the mere plaything of the human will and passion, while practical backing for many of the Enlightenment’s goals came from strange combinations of mystical speculation and calls for the exercise of Machtpolitik.