Speaking of mass enthusiasm and/or collective hysteria, Sydney is soon to experience such an orchestrated happening via the so called world youth circus event---an event which PT Barnum would have been proud of.

All of those suckers waiting to be fleeced and sold fairy floss "religion"

Which by the way isnt a "world youth" day at all.
The title is a propagandistic lie.
It is an event for catholic youth. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the overwheliming majority of the worlds youth who are NOT catholic.

The "star" attraction will be there in his colourful clown suit and all of his usual manipulative lies.
Look at me, look at me. Be enthusiastic about me---papa pope.
And his "magisterium" delusions.

Plus the "faithful" who are really suckers will even get to be mystified by the bones of some pious sucker who died 80 years ago.
And even get to see a theatrical re-enactment of the cruci-FICTION.

The cult of the dead.

Similar enthusiasms occur around the Dalai Llama.

And used to occur when Billy Graham came to town with his show-biz mass hysteria hucksterism, direct from the USA---the nation of salesmen.

But isnt the iconic figure of "jesus" itself the centre of a NOW (and 2000 year old) world-wide cult of enthusiasm?

In this day and age isnt "jesus" just another consumer product with which the usual dreadfully sane every-person can glamorize or console themselves.

The internet is flooded with websites and blogs full of (fake) enthusiasm for "jesus".
The "emergent" jesus.
The left-behind jesus, and the anticipated "rapture".
Jesus and (or via) the "victory" of reason.

Christianity became a world dominant cult via the point of a sword, and the barrel of a gun---even via cruise missiles.

Its "success" had nothing whatsoever to do with the great calling of Saint Jesus of Galilee to practice self-transcending love in all relationships.
What has self-transcending love got to do with the world-conquering politics of Empire? Then or now.

Denton is a bad example here. He's pretty much what you've described. He hides behind passive/aggressive agenda laden leading questions couched in his cheesy self-angrandising humour. Enuff rope is pretty much merely a device for showcasing the 'talents' of Denton. He always does it at his guests expense. Will never forget his racist jibes at an indigenous actor at the logies one year. What a dick.

Kennett, being a politician, obviously knows how to read people and understands an interviwers ruse when he's in the middle of one. Obviously denton met his ego match where kennett wouldnt lay down whilst denton did his 'look-at-me-its-all-about-me' thing, whilst trying to come off all interesting, probing and expansive.

Dentons thing is all about trapping people thru leading questions and distorting the answer so as to make it look like the guest has hung themselves. Soooooo denton that. He always has an agenda, namely... denton.

Personally, when socialising, l do the opposite of what the author describes, preferring to eschew the company of people who steer their agendas thru apparent discussion, question and answer. l much prefer straight talkers, who make direct statements, dont hide behind question markes and say what they mean and mean what they say.

Its truely uncommon to find this sort of thing as we're all pretty much just awash in our own egotistical self-validation. Few people know how to disagree intelligently, or better still have a discourse that develops ideas without asserting a point, proving oneself right, argueing or whatever.

So when the likes of kennett (who can invoke a masterfully arrogant facade when in the company of a microphone/camera/tv studio laden spectator) upstages the media's talking heads, who pretty much do nothing and say a lot (denton)... its quite amusing to watch such stark irony.

Peter -

Don't you consider perhaps that with this article you run the risk of being accused of conflating the etymology and common usage of a word in a rather confusing manner?

While the derivation of words is a subject about which I am, personally, extremely "enthusiastic" I doubt one person in ten would thereby assume I was filled with the rapture of the Holy Spirit. In fact no-one who knew me personally would consider the thought at all.

Yes, I agree word histories are fascinating but, by the same token, one could entitle an article "Beware of nice people" and only a handful of persons would have any idea of why on earth they should be.

Just as fascinating, I consider, is the emergence of new words or the changing of word meaning within our own lifetimes. In this particular case, I think that a study of the word "hype" would get the point across in a manner that would be inclusive to all.

Personally, I encourage enthusiasm - in the commonly accepted meaning of the word - as an antidote to the increasing apathy that holds so many in thrall. It would indeed protect the apathetic from falling victim to the kind of hype which you are discussing, don't you think?

pETER
yOU ARE AN ICONIC FIGURE IN wESTERN aUSTRALIA'S cHRISTIAN COMMUNITY.
How are we to distinguish between the snake oil salesman and the purveyor of spiritual values and direction?

Jeremaids delivered in the most forlorn manner no matter how important the messages will drive people to despair...whatever the truths.

A certain liveliness of manner invites hope and confidence. Imagine trying to sell the latest model Commodore in a way that suggests that it may not be all that is being spruiked.How long do you reckon the salesman will keep his job?

socratease

Ho Hum

Although I could not care about World Youth day I am sure it is far better for our society that when every deviant gathers for the Mardi Gras. The spread of disease and degradation is matched by nothing else.

Romany
Of course you are right about “conflating the etymology and common usage of a word in a rather confusing manner?” is just what I have done. That might be why I had so much trouble writing the article and my dissatisfaction with the result. I seem to remember James Barr writing something about the mistake of taking old meanings of words and transferring them to present day usage. Given this criticism I do find it useful at times to make these comparisons (I did it twice in the one article) because some light is shed on how far we have come. I think that is why the gravestone is so interesting. Enthusiasm used to be a pejorative but now it is the reverse.

I have been reminded through reading Charles Taylor’s new book “As secular age” that most philosophies through the ages had a dim view of the passions, seeing them as illusory, over against the cold light of reason. But then you have the danger of that cold light that has led us into horrors. The history of the West has been, to some extent, getting the balance right, a rationality that is balanced with compassion. But I still see the late modern obsession with passion or enthusiasm a bit of a worry.

Hi Peter,

Your article is interesting, although my first reaction was - just another article criticising atheism by stealth. And you go on to say “It might not surprise the reader that enthusiasm is not the exclusive domain of the religious.” That is okay, all part of healthy and open debate.

Enthusiasm defined as “ardent zeal” (The Pocket Oxford Dictionary) is not the exclusive domain of any group but evident in many political, philosophical, community and environmental debates.

There are two factors at play here. One: is there is a difference between discussing religious differences in an intelligent and yes, even enthusiastic manner with thoughtful and well considered arguments as opposed to preaching (either atheist preaching or religious). Preaching and quoting bible passages is as meaningless to an atheist as quoting from Beatrix Potter. Similarly preaching by atheists to the converted is equally futile.

In this respect I agree that some atheists like Dawkins etal, are passionate and enthusiastic in their opposition to religion. The criticism I would make about the God Delusion is that it is quite vitriolic in parts. However, on the ABCs Compass program a while back I found Dawkins to be softly spoken, polite but probing. Quite different to how I perceived he might be in ‘real life’.

I think sometimes the reactions to some of our more religious friends on OLO is the perception of not only futile attempts to convert but using meaningless phrases and quotations instead of using their own words and arguments; an aversion to religious mania, perhaps. I have not seen any ‘atheist’ mania as yet. Even Dawkins’ argument is well reasoned, scientifically argued but still reflects compassion for humankind.

continued...

continued from above...

“We will hear about “agents for change”, of men and women “making a difference”... latest buzz words: excellence, innovation, best practice, bench mark, international, ground breaking. To what do these words refer? Is this not just the language of enthusiasm used to make us all feel powerful?”

Peter I think these words are indicative of current political and bureaucratic jargon rather than a reflection of the desire to feel powerful. Each era has used words like these; different words for different times. These words change and evolve as quickly as the seasons.

Socially, I too would rather be surrounded by enthusiasm even if in opposition to my own views, rather than a homogenous bland, uninspired group or sheep who can only repeat and sprout current populist thoughts. Enthusiasm tempered with commonsense and compassion is worthy it is only dangerous in the hands of a zealot without compassion, tolerance and acceptance.

Perhaps in some respects, the atheist is a person who has “faith” that human nature itself can provide adequate moral frameworks without the need for the ‘big stick’ of religion to protect society. I guess we don’t have any evidence for that either as there is nothing that we can compare one way or the other. Religion certainly has not stopped war or hate and is rather divisive, but we don’t have anything with which to compare how life might have been without the strong influence of religion on our culture and history. But we also have to accept that culture evolves and with education comes knowledge,questioning and dare I say it 'innovation'.

As far as the historical context regarding protection from heresy, we make a mistake if we perceive these judgements as nothing more than a desire to retain power. Some of these "protections" against heresy were not well intentioned and often used against rivals or enemies (similar to witchburnings). Certainly the masses may have been convinced of this but I am not so sure about the leaders of the various big Churches.

(It this came through previously then disregard)

“The history of the West has been, to some extent, getting the balance right”. Perhaps – perhaps that could as justly be said to be what the whole history of human endeavour is and has been about?

I personally consider however, that Pocock’s “the Enlightenment in England was in part a response to the lawlessness so produced” is not just a bit of a stretch but a great big leap if provided in support of this “balance” theory. Is it upon his thesis that you base the statement of yours which links the Interregnum with enthusiasm?

I would have thought that was not such a very apt illustration of the etymological meaning of the word but of the modern construction? For it is unarguable that the dismantling of churches and bashing down of monasteries was undertaken with great (contemporary)enthusiasm. But the institution of a regime wherein bell ringing, singing, dancing, playacting – the hallmarks of the contemporary institutions your article enjoins us to be wary of – were so dolefully suppressed , by extension, suppressed any traits of the kind of enthusiasm historically linked to the Anabaptist movement/s surely?

(In the Jane Austen article I found myself not quite in agreement over certain remarks about the Early Modern period but, as the subject was actually about the laicism of the clergy I didn’t want to derail the thread. Now that its come up again do you mind terribly my having gone down this path? I am so passionate about this period.(!) )

And yes, I agree about the coldness of rationalism. That’s why (quelle horreur) I have always had a bit of a soft spot for the Jesuits: -unarguably rational, but also quite heated at times.

"Dawkins et al steadfastly refuse to have conversations with professional theologians in order to preserve their distorted view of the faith"

Distorted? Depends on your perspective Peter. There are six billion faiths today; I take it only yours is the only undistorted one.

I've also seen Dawkins engage with religious leaders & thinkers. He does get carried away with his enthusiasm but no more than any regular god-botherer.

Hello Peter,

I am reminded of Ralf Walso Emerson:

“Enthusiasm is one of the most powerful engines of success. When you do a thing, do it with all your might. Put your whole soul into it. Stamp it with your own personality. Be active, be energetic, be enthusiastic and faithful, and you will accomplish your object. Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm.”

Also,

Enthusiam has two sides. It is a vehicle of execution of, both, good and bad behaviour.

We might not have our liberal democracy, if it were not for the enthusiasm of seventeenth and eighteenth French Revisionist Thinkers.

On-the-other-hand, for generations after Nicaea, Christians, Taliban-like, as mentioned to Boazy, demonstrated great enthusiam in destroying great pagan temples, libraries and artworks. Glee, in the destruction of history.

Also,

"Dawkins et al steadfastly refuse to have conversations with professional theologians in order to preserve their distorted view of the faith." - Article

I agree with you, he should. Dawkins received a bit of a serve in ISIS, the peak journal of the History of Science Society, recently. The Reviewer alleged he was "brilliant" at genetics, but shallow outside of his field.

[I had come to the same conclusion independently, beforehand; albeit, we play on the same team.]

That said, the Vatican astronomers refused to look through Galilleo's telescope, because to do so [and they knew it, I bet!], would collapse the supernatural into the natural.

- But surely you and our friend Boazy, step between the rain drops in this Forum.

Also,

Cheers,

Oly.

Dear Peter,

"Frenzy" - OED

The root of the word enthusiasm, is possession and inspiration, having been possessed "by a god" [or a daemon]. These good folk of ol' were a-mused [seen Xanado?]; else put, inspired. [Now, I will have the sound track on my mind for hours ;-)]

Holland's(1603) remark below, about "divine fury" and "raging & storming" does not seem very passive to me. Not your laid-back English cleric, as posited.

Note too, the term also applied to the occult facit of religiosity.

Perhaps, Abraham Heschel, needs a bigger dictionary. Herein, in its original form ,the word "enthusiasm", refers to any god, not just the Christian god, and, to daemons too. Behaviour was animated, frenzied; not passive.

Correct Etymology in context with religions:

"ad. late L. enthsiasm-us, Gr. , f. , f. (Zonaras Lex.) the fact of being possessed by a god. Cf. Fr. enthousiasme.

The word has been explained by Leo Meyer as for *, abstr. n. f. *- stem of pr. pple. of * to be .]

1. a. Possession by a god, supernatural inspiration, prophetic or poetic frenzy; an occasion or manifestation of these. Obs.

[1579 E. K. Gloss. Spenser's Sheph. Cal. Oct. Argt., A certaine and celestiall inspiration. 1608 SYLVESTER Du Bartas 210, I feel the vertue of my spirit decayed, The Enthousiasmos of my Muse allaid.] 1603 HOLLAND Plutarch's Mor. 1342 The Dæmons use to make their prophets and prophetesses to be ravished with an Enthusiasme or divine fury. 1620 J. PYPER tr. Hist. Astrea I. v. 146 The Bacchanals runne thorow the streets raging and storming, full of the Enthusiasme of their god. 1651 BAXTER Inf. Bapt. 87 Doth he think they knew it by Enthusiasm or Revelation from Heaven? 1674 HICKMAN Hist. Quinquart. (ed. 2) 8 Nothing made the Anabaptists so infamous as their pretended enthusiasms or revelations. 1693 URQUHART Rabelais III. Prol., It is my sole Entousiasm. 1807 ROBINSON Archæol. Græca III. xii. 253 The second sort of ..were such as pretended to enthusiasm."

Acknowledgement - OED Unabridged - Etymology

Kind regards,

Oly.

Romany.
I am interested in your questioning of the link between outbreaks of enthusiasm during the interregnum and the highly rationalised theology that came out of Locke and Clarke and the rest, after the tolerant William and Mary were on the throne. These links are notoriously difficult to validate with historical data but it does seem reasonable to see a connection between the religious wars on the continent, the over enthusiastic Puritans of Cromwell’s reign and the rise of free church sectarianism with a highly intellectual theology in which God can be imputed but never experienced. In other words this was a reaction against highly emotional religious experience. It would certainly be very interesting to track this down; Pocock does not give a lot of evidence for his theory.

The interesting think about enthusiasm is that it can swing between the religious and the secular so easily. I had thought of quoting Emerson (Oliver) because he is the ultimate Enlightenment man. What happens with enthusiasm is that it sees God within the self and that is a very dangerous idea both for the religious and the secular. The Enlightenment represents the radical turn to the self in which an external God or transcendence is replaced by something within the self. The language that Pocock uses is symptomatic of that. As “exclusive humanists” we believe that this is our only option, but it really is a form of self idolatry. So what you get is a human titanism, the same spirit that moved all of the great and terrible events in the 20th century. When I encounter the “can do” spirit, particularly alive in America, the Enlightenment experiment writ large, a question forms for me, is this the same old spirit, the same old celebration of human capacities that have led to so much good and evil in the world?

Peter Sellick

Peter,

"That might be why I had so much trouble writing the article and my dissatisfaction with the result. I seem to remember James Barr writing something about the mistake of taking old meanings of words and transferring them to present day usage." - Sells

Peter, there is no problem, here. You are capable writer. I think most people realize meanings change over time. The obsolete meaning of enthusiasm seems to be more to do with infusion, than it does with exhibition: Something injected, not something projected.

I would posit enthusiasm is a step or two away from self-centredness.

Individualism, perhaps, is a product of Revisionist thinking;

Individualism can be "infused" with enthusiasm, using the word's original meaning. [Sorry, James Barr, :-)]

Yet, individualism need not to be about self-centredness. Individualism also engenders mutual respect between individuals; i.e., fraternity and equality, not collectivism nor bounded patriarchal familialism.

The power of millions of individuals counter-balance the centralised powers in State and Church. Herein, Authoritianism is restrained and we have distributed power. The State and the Church are sublimated to a host of individuals. It is called liberal democracy.

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,
I have been a critic of liberal democracy because the much vaunted individual cannot know who he is unless his life is enmeshed with a truthful narrative. The liberal narrative that is simply “you are free” does not cut the mustard. Surely we see the results of the atomisation of society.

Peter

Would be interested in seeing some evidence to back your assertion that "Dawkins et al steadfastly refuse to have conversations with professional theologians". I have read a lot about Dawkins, Hitchens etc and certainly do not recall them backing out of a discussion with anybody, including thelogians, whether amateur or pro.

Are you sure you are not getting confused about Dawkins rebuttal of the proposition that he does not know enough about theology to write a book such as "The God Delusion". From memory, his rebuttal was along the lines that it did not require an expert in fabrics or fashion to see clearly that the Emperor had no clothes - a child could see this.

My contention is that the beginnings of the laicism of the clergy began in an earlier century: right back where the division of Church and State had its genesis: with Henry. The part played by Thomas Moore and utopianism also had more relevance than is suggested by looking to the interregnum for causality.

Remember too that the influence of Bacon was profound and that without the Induction Method it is doubtful that the English Enlightenment would have evolved the way it did. Also that Locke's theories were grounded in a thorough knowledge of Hobbes.

Primary documents - and in particular primary documents provided by women of the period - prove that societal attitudes had already changed BEFORE Charles I lost his head. (Rather a reductive statement I guess in light of that event occurring at all.)

I think we are in danger of positing free church sectarianism as a trickle-down effect if we follow Pocock. Whereas the possibility that in fact it was the questioning of an EXISTING tendency which motivated Locke, Voltaire et. al.is not considered.

I further contend that too much emphasis placed on the "outbreaks" of enthusiasm can skew our view. These outbreaks could indeed be regarded as an outcome of the religious persecutions during Mary's reign and the witch fervour of James I. Their importance during Cromwellian times seems somewhat exaggerated however. This was not a time of peace but of continual unrest, plot/counter plot, intense dissatisfaction, schism and faction. Enthusiasm simply was not important enough during this time (though I am not arguing that it was not important) to have influenced Locke and Co. to the point where it could be said to have been influential.

I would also like to question your view of the humanism of Enlightenment thinkers as leading to titanism? Most of the philosophers of the age were certainly not atheists and so their humanist views were based within a theistic paradigm - one that saw self-idolatry as transgressive, surely?

"These outbreaks could indeed be regarded as an outcome of the religious persecutions during Mary's reign and the witch fervour of James I. Their importance during Cromwellian times seems somewhat exaggerated however." - Romany

Interesting posts. Thanks.

General Monk made a quite a mess of the Catholic nobles' castles and Catholic houses of worship. [And for some stange reason* left Rosslyn a.k.a. Roslin Chapel in tact.]

* Some have suggested Masonic connections between the Cromwell and The Earl of Roslin. The latter's dynasty had very close connetions with Mary Queen of Scots and her forebearers.

Peter,

I will reply to your post soon.

"The latest crop of Christian persecutors display all of the marks of enthusiasm as Edmund Burke noted: “These atheist fathers have a bigotry of their own and they have learned to write against monks with the spirit of a monk.”"

What does this entail, exactly? Asking for evidence? Refusing to believe the unsupported word of the believer? Displaying scepticism about old tired arguments which have been refuted a thousand times before? Insisting that the normal standards of rational debate be applied to religious discussions?

Get real, Peter. Persecution is burning at the stake. Persecution is torture in the dungeons of the Inquisition. Persecution is murdering your daughter because she went out with someone not of your faith. Persecution is sending death threats to someone who leaves your religion. Persecution is car bombs in a crowded market.

All that we atheists want is some rational dialogue.

Romany.
Thank you for the most provoking posts that I have had on these pages. I had not thought of Thomas Moore as setting the stage for later outcomes. I had him more of a medieval man caught between the times and unable to do anything about the king’s great matter. I will look again.

I am aware of the importance of Bacon in this regard, perhaps that is why I had not thought of Moore. Descartes looked to the improvement of the estate of man with the help of instrumental reason. I guess it is hard to dissect origins when ideas are “in the air”.

Also I had not connected Locke with Hobbes. After all, Locke’s attitude to Hobbes was decisively negative “nothing good can come out of Malmsebury.” I am learning that posture is more important than reality when it comes to philosophers of the time!

Much of the rest of your post is out of my ken. There is obviously much history I need to read before I can comment.

Yours last comment does fall within my expertise. Certainly the English Enlightenment was mostly a clerical affair, indeed a desperate attempt to shore up belief in God in the face of the new mechanical philosophy. Humanism was present in the ghost of Erasmus which had influence with the latitudinarians.

Peter Sells,

More as a "medieval man"? Bite your tongue!

I have always been an advocate of the cross-disciplinary approach to education and have indeed tried to practice what I preach in this connection. But what is important to keep in mind is that once the Church was no longer in sole charge of education (and again, here we go back to the late 16th century, Henry and the growth of University education)all education WAS cross-disciplinary.

Because education remained the province of a (very)small elite, and because so much was circulated in manuscript form, educated persons all operated within a commonality of influences. In this context then, it is imperative that we do not undervalue the influence of the secular upon the theological nor of theology upon humanist philosophy.

Utopia although written by a man who is part of the canon of Catholic Saints, I venture to posit, could be regarded not only as a direct influence upon Enlightenment thought, but as the first Communist - or at the very least Socialist, manifesto. The entire genus of utopian literature which flourished throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was, unarguably, the food for thought upon which Enlightenment thinkers fed.

It is for this reason that I can never think of Locke without thinking of Hobbes - whose influence amongst the educated elite until the Restoration was huge. While in exile with the Court his position was consolidated so that no-one who laid claim to the title of being "educated" could help but be influenced by him for the next 50 or more years.

"Humanism was present in the ghost of Erasmus which had influence with the latitudinarians." - yes, and More and Erasmus are intertwined. While I made huge claims above for More, reading the section concerning Religion in Utopia will illustrate what precedents the latitudinarians were following.

And regarding your comments regarding the provocative nature of my posts?Its also refreshing for me to be to think about matters which, living in China, I seldom get an opportunity to discuss.

Romany and Sells,

The historical background to the rise of Liberalism is seen in the rejection of, absolutism and privilege in the fifteen century, wherein throughout the medieval period church authority was dominant. In principle, Church doctrine did uphold human equality; yet, the individual was presided over by authoritarian religious institutions and ecclesiastically-based restrictions. Private conscience and personal interpretation were frowned-upon. Scientific discovery was repressed.

Until the rise of modern nation-states, we have Crown and Church oligarchies holding power over individuals and societies. Ordinary people had little or no power against Church authorities, monarchs or lords. Individualist enthusiasm was dangerous.

Moreover, except for small business of craft guilds, pre-modern societies were geared towards land ownership, rather than liquid capital. Church and the Landed Aristocracy, enthusiastically, exercised control and were not inclined towards changing this picture.

Commerce accompanying The Protestant Reformation supported the development of a bourgeoisie, with surplus capital. Expanding commerce challenged the Church and aristocracy. I think it is here, we see a breaking free.

Departure allowed the establishment of new [new-style] churches. The time was ripe for the seeding of the “humanism” of Eramus; and, as noted by Francis Bacon, the ability of the natural sciences to raise the levels of human welfare [Wasserman, 1944]:

The shankles of feudal society were gone. A technological society valuing the tenets of liberal thought and economic & personal individualism emerged, for the betterment of humankind.

Sells,

I think I understand what you are saying: What is the purpose/worth of all this technology, freedom and knowledge, in the absence of the “enmeshment” of a purposeful truth? Wherein, you would have a human-divine didactic.

Yet, you probably would not have your physical Bible to read, were it not for the printing press, which is “The” metaphor for free-thought and individualism.

Enthusiast, John Ludlow saw a place for Christianity in modernity. In England; Ludlow was joined by Frederick Maurice and Charles Kingsley with regards to the role of, Christian socialism in welfare reformation. Likewise, Bishop von Ketteler and Franz Hitz in Germany.

Enthusiastically yours,

O.

Sells “I have been a critic of liberal democracy because the much vaunted individual cannot know who he is unless his life is enmeshed with a truthful narrative. The liberal narrative that is simply “you are free” does not cut the mustard.”

And your alternative is what exactly

Subjugation to the church or the state?

Observation and experience suggests neither the organisations of Churches nor the offices of the State have ever pursued a “truthful narrative” with any one, they have always skewed their narration to maintain an authoritarian role in peoples lives.

In the absence of an effective narrator, I would tend to rely on my friends to provide as enmeshed and truthful feedback for me to consider and of course, I am free to choose my friends but we choose each other based on mutual respect, not on assumed or hijacked authority.

As for enthusiasm, I would sooner mix with people who are enthusiastic and excited about what they will aspire to in life than go hang around with those who cry into their beer or absorb themselves in faux spirituality because they lack both purpose and direction but still need an emotional crutch.

"I have been a critic of liberal democracy because the much vaunted individual cannot know who he is unless his life is enmeshed with a truthful narrative. The liberal narrative that is simply “you are free” does not cut the mustard. Surely we see the results of the atomisation of society." - Sells

[1] Please note my intervening post on Liberalism and Christian Socialism.

[2] As elaborated upon above millions of interviduals counterbalance centralised power and authority, so we don't march to the tune of State or Church elite.

Morever, said "atoms" can formulate and re-formulate into different molecules. Being dynamical, groups of individuals are more dynamic, than "led" groupe. A dynamical model is more resistant to a multiple challanges.

[3] I would think an atheist, such as Murray Gell-Mann, would no feel lost and without purpose. I suspect, he would be enthused about undertaking his valuable work and sharing/debating its results.

Likewise, a more popular, though much less accomplished scientist and atheist, the Late Carl Sagan, was highly enthusiastic, in the modern sense of the term. He was loved my millions. Ever seen an episode of, "Cosmos"?

Sagan. Here was a man, loving life, having an excellent marriage and good human relationships,while a significant contributor to popular science education.

Unlike Gell-Mann, Sagan would go no where winning a nobel prize based his minor scholarship. Yet, Sagan received great
"personal" reward and community acknowledge ment than Gell-Man.

[4] Regarding my on research, I am building a scales under the cultural dimension of horizonal altruism. I wont publish for another 6-9 months, yet earlier indications, arising from the data, indicate horizonal altruism sits best with individualist societies not collectivist societies.

[5] The challenge for liberal democracy is to steer a straight course and not be pulled in the direction of theisism, communism or state capitalism. Else, we have enthusists, Bin Laden, Mao or Hilter, respectfully.

Peter,

Check out: Elations: The Poetics of Enthusiasm in Eighteenth-Century Britain (1999) by Shaun Irlam; Stanford University, 1999, if UWA has a copy.

There may be material of interest to you given your PhD studies and your article contribution.

Sells and Romany,

Any comment the above posts?

"... From the perception of a dual threat to established English Protestantism there arose a two-edged polemic against the 'superstition' of Rome, which held Christ to be physically present in the sacraments, and the 'enthusiasm' of the sects, which held the Spirit to be immediately present in the congregation or even the individual. Because this was a polemic about the ways in which spirit could be present in matter, it came to be crucial in the formation of English and Enlightened philosophy; because it was concerned with the Spirit's action in human society and in respect of human authority..." - Polcock

Isn't the Catholic view on transubstantiation the more enthusiastic than the Anglican, in the old meaning of the term? Are seven sacraments more enthusiastic than two?

Oliver.

That is a great quote from Pocock that I did not find in either of the two articles I have from him. Can I ask your reference? This is important because it draws a connection between the Protestant distain for the doctrine of transubstantiation and the spirit filled sects and also indicates that it is to do with how spirit indwells matter, a primary concern of the time after the mechanical philosophy became so prominent. The ancients believed in the great chain of being, a hierarchy in which inert matter was at the bottom, then plants, animals, humans, heavenly beings and finally God. The mechanical philosophy destroyed this hierarchy and laid Spirit and matter side by side, so the problem then became how does spirit act on matter if spirit is non material?

There has been a misunderstanding in the forum about the difference between the modern meaning of enthusiasm and that of the 18th century and before as has been pointed out by Romany. For the 18th C and before, enthusiasm was not just commitment or energy it was more to do with the Spirit of God dwelling in the individual. That is, the individual did not act as himself but as the Spirit moved him, that is why it is similar to possession. This is quite different from the modern individual’s enthusiasm that we find in Emerson in which it is the energy of the individual that is the motive power.

So to say that Henry VIII enthusiastically demolished the monasteries is use in the modern sense. At the time it would not have been called enthusiasm.

I am still not sure how much the anti-enthusiastic move was a partial motivator in the cerebral English enlightenment. Certainly Romany is correct to point out the importance of utopian thought from More, Bacon, Descartes, Hooke, Boyle, Locke and the Royal Society. Even my subject Samuel Clarke in his parish at St James Westminster was opposed to any show of enthusiasm on Sunday morning.

Peter,

Block quote:

“The Church of England that took shape after the Restoration of 1660 was a not always easy alliance between so-called 'high churchmen' and so-called 'latitudinarians', who had found it possible to conform both before and after 1660. The former had insisted that a sacred monarchy was necessary to the being of the Church as by law established; the latter appeared inclined to the belief that forms of government were indifferent to religious experience, which was consequently capable of organising itself in subordination to any of them. But it is not possible to reconstruct the two streams of opinion as sharply opposed alternatives.

The 'high churchmen' saw their king and supreme governor as a sacred but not a priestly figure, holy because the natural and social order were holy, possessing divine right but not special spiritual gifts; the roots of their thinking were in Hooker, Erasmus and remotely Aquinas.

When they looked back to the 'Laudian' and 'Arminian' milieux in which most of them had been formed, they could see the liberation of human sociability and natural authority from the absolute decrees of Calvinist grace, quite as clearly as the swing towards baroque ritualism and ecumenical respect for even the Pope's authority which had briefly characterised 'Arminianism' in England more than elsewhere…” - Pocock

Oliver,
Thanks for that, but where is is from?
Peter

-cont.-

"Their veneration for apostolic origins drew them towards a history of the primitive church which did not emphasise the Petrine supremacy and presented the rise of the papacy as a late development, and they could follow Erasmus, Grotius and their own ecclesiastical historians in reconciling apostolical Christianity with a historical context.

There was nothing here which need set 'high' and 'latitudinarian' churchmen at odds, while on the level of philosophy— where the intellect confronted the problems of the presence of spirit in matter — both groups were equally responsive to Cambridge Platonism, which considered a divinely implanted reason the proper antidote to self-deluded enthusiasm, and to the Baconianism found with other positions in the Royal Society, which, while sharply critical of Platonism as itself enthusiastic, was working its way towards a view of God as creating matter and giving it laws, while remaining distinct from and in no way immanent in it.

The distinction between high-church and latitudinarian Anglicanism, therefore, does not itself impede the argument that the origins of Enlightenment in England lie in the maintenance by the church of its Erasmian, Arminian and Grotian traditions.” Pocock (pp. 24-25)

- It would appears that while the Anglican Church, as a whole, was separating from The Holy See, concurrently, there was factionalism regarding the extent of said revision. Perhaps, the answer to your question is in Pocock’s last sentence.

Of course, long before this time, both Abelard and Luther questioned the Catholic Church’s theology at their own peril. Regarding Catholic theocracy, I feel, above, Pocock has omitted the Councils of Kent.

Regards.

Oliver
I think you'll find that Roman Catholics aren't obliged to believe in transuubstantiation ...the older generation of traditionalists still hold to what they were told and it is still an article of their faith. The younger generation of priests and some liberal older clergy are going very soft on the subject.The move is to eventually put it behind them.When I did John as one of my theology units I had an RC priest who explained the transitional position.Some saw it as a backing down.I saw it more as a development that is starting to move through the ranks but very slowly,naturally enough.
The rapture of Father Pio is very much under a cloud too.A historical study by one of their scholars in the Vatican has warned of the need to be more cautious. They draw a distinction now days between enthusiasm for the life of Father Pio and any wild rapturous beliefs that need to be bagged. Not many of us hear about the reining in of rapture...nor for that matter do many Catholics.When I mentioned it to my Catholic friends,one of whom has an altar to Pio, they froze in amazement and laughed it off as anti-Catholic propaganda that they have been told is sweeping parts of the world. I dont feel as welcome as I used to be at one time although I did say that the matter was still being investigated by B17 and his razor gang.

socratease

Oliver,
Could you tell me which of Pocock's many publications you are quoting from?
Peter

Sorry, I was distracted working within the word limits, leaving the main item out. Blocked for 24 Hours. Again, please excuse the delay.

(1) Reference:

The Enlightenments of Edward Gibbon, 1737-1764. Volume 1, Pocock, J.G.A. (1999, p.24), Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England

Hope this reference helps you.

Good luck with your Jane Auston thesis.

(2) Greek Root:

“There has been a misunderstanding in the forum about the difference between the modern meaning of enthusiasm and that of the 18th century and before as has been pointed out by Romany.” - Sells

Herein,

In-theos*, in god. We use the word every day and most would miss en-thuse.

Oliver,
Many thanks, prompted by your first quotation I have ordered the first three volumes of "Barbarians and Religion" the second of which contains your quotation.

Peter

Peter,

No problem. Happy to help.

socratease,

A complement to "The Body of Christ" is "The Thought of God", wherein God's thought is clamed by adherents to reside in organic and inorganic matter. A position examined by Spinoza. Gustav Fechner attributed a soul to the planet, Earth.

- Ref: The Tarner Lectures, Cambridge, "The Physical Basis of Consciousness" by Edwin Schodinger (1956)

Sells

I have just been reading Peter Jensen's article in SMH explaining the Lambeth boycott. It seems God "honours" enthusiasm along with faithfulness.

Your response to GAFCON is certainly going to be interesting!