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.