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.