How Did Staunch Protestant Reformers Unintentionally Birth Secularism?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2024
- #history #philosophy #protestant #modern
In this talk, I discuss the historian Brad Gregory's fine book "Rebel in the Ranks: Martin Luther, the Reformation, and the Conflicts That Continue to Shape Our World."
In particular, I answer the following questions:
★ How did a secular society arise accidentally from a profoundly religious movement?
★ What is secularism and why does it matter today?
★ How does secularism emerge in tandem with a new hedonic conception of the good life--that is, in lockstep with what Gregory terms "the goods life" (notice the "s")?
✱
Total Work TEDx Talk: www.ted.com/talks/andrew_tagg...
✱ ✱ ✱
▶ Website: andrewjtaggart.com
▶ Newsletter: pathwaystotao.substack.com
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 71 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ทรงชัยน้อย vs รักษ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_AGPnq2p6Js/mqdefault.jpg)
Erasmus told Luther not to shatter the glass , but he did anyway .
Protestantism must lead to athieism, either practical or actual, because the truth embraced by the individual is always at the most fundamental level based upon not revelation but what the person is willing to accept as true. Its not sola sc
riptura that is their guide but Oh Solo Mio scriptura. As an aside it is interesting that New York the financial capitol of the modern system began as New Amsterdam, the devil either isnt worried about leaving clues behind of his activity, or he has a snide sense of humor... probably both. We moderns are too busy aquiring stuff to get his joke.
It's almost as if Roman Catholics have zero knowledge of or willful blindness towards Descartes (or Machiavelli).
"Protestantism *must lead* to athieism, either practical or actual, because the truth embraced by the individual is always at the most fundamental level based upon not revelation but what the person is willing to accept as true" (my emphases). It may not be atheism--but I see your drift.
You could say that it leads to philosophical solipsism in some cases, to humanism ("the human is the measure of all things") in many cases, and atheism in some cases. Consider, here, Emily Dickinson: if memory serves, she said that she never went to a house of worship; but she did feel that she had a personal relationship with Divinity.
Certainly, the entire, long development has a strong "humanizing tendency," as James Turner, another historian, calls it in the other video I recently recorded (called "Either/Or").
@@secondaxialage I don't think you can accurately say that Protestantism leads to philosophical solipsism as a necessary outcome. That would deny that Descartes emerged out of a Roman Catholic background (granted he was active in the Dutch Republic, so maybe he was breathing too much Calvinist air). Also the notion of humanism was certainly not just confined to Luther or the later Reformers as Erasmus would be the epitome of the "human is the measure of all things" humanism of the era. And while we could look at Emily Dickinson's (I'm not a fan, but that's besides the point) personalism with respect to encountering God, is her experience really that divorced from mystics like St. Therese of Avila or of the earlier desert monastics or the stylites? I would argue, not divorced much at all in praxis. I find the thesis to be unconvincing and of the same quality that starts from the erroneous premise that Luther was a nominalist.
@@pete3397 These are all fair replies. In lieu of taking up each point, I'll simply reply to the first one.
You began: "I don't think you can accurately say that Protestantism leads to philosophical solipsism *as a necessary outcome*" (my stars).
I'm not sure that I was claiming--or at least such wasn't my intention--that it was a necessary outcome, only that one could see a development moving in that direction.
Bear in mind that I'm also responding to someone who's written the initial comment. If you see a reply as something of an opening to an I-thou relationship (however transient that may be), then the points made there--that is, in my comment above--may seem less like diehard claims I'm seeking to defend and more like an exercise in empathy with my interlocutor.
The same, of course, goes for this reply to you. I'm seeking whether, in the digital age, it's possible "to meet," if only for a moment or two.
@@secondaxialage Thanks for the response. I acknowledge that you were responding to specifics from another poster (who I disagree with strongly) and I appreciate your qualifications. Cheers!
Reminds me of the book. Theological origins of modernity which argued that protestantism arose as a result of the rise of nominalist philosophy and secularism emerged from the absentee god proposed by some protestants.
Gillespie is really sharp. A number of years ago, I appreciated his book on Nietzsche.
The prevalence of nominalism also comes out in Hans Blumenberg's The Legitimacy of the Modern World--and in other books too. The historical question turns on the pre-eminence of reason or the will. I especially like Edward Craig's The Mind of God and The Works of Man.
That's complete nonsense though. Protestantism wasn't new it rose from the dead after Luther. There were waldensians and albigensians and anabaptists and donatists as others called them. And it was a natural reaction to the apostasy of Rome.
An absentee God is not at all a protestant concept that's a deist position. We call books like this casuistry and Jesuit sophistry. Deists or gnostics have influence in the Roman Catholic Church not protestantism. Well not at the time at any rate.
@@joshportie Your position is absurd. Christ said the true Church would never be destroyed (become "dead.") MT 16:18. Protestantism is "spiritual anarchy"---dozens and dozens of sects with conflicting and contradictory beliefs. As such it is not the Church spoken of in the Nicene Creed---"One.Holy,Catholic, and Apostolic...."
@@marteld2108 ah yes, the Nicene creed written and approved by Jesus himself.
Very nicely done, sir. I appreciate the way you speak deliberately, daring to pause to choose your words. You have a new subscriber. tavi.
Very kind of you, Tavi.
Many years ago I watched Gregory's lecture series for The Great Courses on The Reformation. It is an excellent course
I totally agree with you. While I think it would be helpful, in terms of the "grand narrative" he's telling, to place more emphasis on the nineteenth century (in particular, on French materialism), this modest quibble doesn't, in any way, tell against the excellence of his scholarship as well as the power (and elegance) of his historical account.
Sure if you like Catholic revision.
I prefer primary sources myself.
Weird your video popped in my feed. I'm about in as deep as you can get in the 'fracturing' end, being in a """"non-denom"""" christian church. Fun video, it certainly opened my eyes to the idea of a more expansive movement in culture I was unaware of before. Don't know what to make of it, though.
It's a "long march of history" in the West. It goes even further as we see the emergence of "spiritual but not religious" (SBNR) near the end (?) of this hyperfragmentation.
Thomism, occam, the scholastics started the scientific revolution in the 12th/13th century by turning to Aristotle rather than Plato. Reached a head in the prot reformation
@@kyleelsbernd7566 definitely a step on the way
Proteatantism rejected all of that. Luther stated reason was the whore of the devil
Jesus advocated person-to-person charity. He did NOT say we needed a large government bureaucracy, high taxes, and massive income redistribution.
Faith alone is not a good thing and reason alone is not a good thing, however it hard for humans to be other than one-dimensional; lurching from one perspective to another rather than choosing The Middle Way recommended by religion, philosophy, and psychology. What is The Middle Way? It is negotiating a path between opposites. Of course that is hard it requires being consciously aware and using reason. So instead humans choice a viewpoint, stick to it and defend it against all comers. We are in an ever-changing world and we can bring tradition what worked in the past forward and rely on it to some extent and adjust as reason dictates to our current reality. It is a balancing act not ditching tradition because it is important while not being bound to it if is totally irrelevant.
Another point with trans humanism on the horizon we need a strong religion to push back and protect what is unique and human from whatever awful ism is in the pipeline ready to manifest.
You are using capitalist, rightist ideology 😊to stiffle the spirit of Jesus!
He founded a church. And yes, rules and correct interpretstion is important and secure more from the devils.
Thank you, very interesting.
Good presentation. 👏🏻 Although I hadn’t probed this topic as thoroughly and scholarly as you do here, I arrived at the same conclusion. I wasn’t certain that my conclusion was correct, but now I am. I equate the “American dream” with the “goods life”.
Regarding separation of church and state: it’s actually separation of church *from* state, meaning church can involve itself in state affairs (and is even invited to do so) but state must not involve itself in church affairs. The modern misunderstanding nowadays is attributable to SCOTUS justice Hugo Black, who was a Ku Klux Klan member and staunch anti-Catholic.
I’d encourage anyone to read ‘A secular age’ by Charles Taylor
Great video
I would like to know more about how the Calvinism of the Dutch Republic led to tolerance. I’m aware that it didn’t happen all at once, I’d like to explore the forces and ideas that were in play through the 17th century-not immediately following the reformation, and not like 16th century Geneva-that led to the variety of religions being practiced in Amsterdam without restrictions.
The discussion is brief in Gregory's book, but the references are good, I suspect: 1.) Maarten Prak, The Dutch Republic in the 17th C.; 2.) Simon Schama, The Embarrassment of Riches; & 3.) Jonathan Israel, The Dutch Republic. A glance at these 3 books could be a good start.
One more candidate, which may be too far on the economic side but who know?: Jan de Vries and A. van der Woude, The First Modern Economy. Success, Failure, and Perseverance of the Dutch Economy.
It's not just modernity we need to protect ourselves from but also radical traditionalism. Staunch catholics are staunch protestants is what Luther proved.
Very interesting. I have generally considered opening the door to unbelief as a net benefit to religion as it cleared out the less sincere from among the ranks, leading ultimately to a more serious and devout atmosphere for the religious. I hadn't considered the other side of the coin, namely that it left us with a shared language of mere materialism and consideration of the "goods life." I need to think more on this, but my gut reaction is that this is partially to blame for the breakdown and pettiness of modern politics and culture. Thank you for this breakdown.
I tend to think of the history of ideas (also known as intellectual history) as offering a "tragic view" of human history. I don't mean melodrama and, of course, I don't mean epic or triumphalist. By "tragic," I mean that the solution to A or to ABC may be elegant, but it's not without its costs. Usually, those costs are revealed later on. It's precisely this sort of view that I think is *wise*. The tech optimist, who believes that technological and moral progress are the natural (if not necessary) results of the Enlightenment, really overlooks these facts. For instance, the increase in material well-being over the course of the twentieth century (see Deidre McCloskey's trilogy of books on the bourgeois virtues) can hardly be understood apart from a slow withering away of keen interest in the religious life (in any robust sense of that term). I find that *compassion* comes from a genuine reading of history.
@@Dave_Parrott interesting. In Europe the ground state is one of unbelief so maybe of as much questionable sincerity as nominal belief as you identify. Charles Taylor addresses the subject from this exact starting point in ‘A Secular Age’
I like this point. It makes me think about how many churchgoers are there because they can and do genuinely believe it all to their core.
How many are just barely hanging on, desperate to not lose Pascal's Wager?
Bear in mind the Catholic Church didn’t take a tolerant view of anyone who disagreed with their interpretation of scripture,it took a big risk to oppose the churches power and ability to inflict punishment
This mirrors what I'm reading in Carl Trueman's The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self. Subscribed....'>.....
No doubt people like material comforts, but what drove "the goods life" is the increased likelihood of people embracing it growing old enough to watch their grandchildren grow up.
Interesting. Tell me a bit more (if you like) about this: "increased likelihood of people embracing it growing old enough to watch their grandchildren grow up."
@@secondaxialage The increase in "material comforts" caused by secularism directly lead to longer and healthier lives. More and more children survived into adulthood, and family life was invented.
@@NielMalan Considering the argument you make here, you might want to check out book reviews of Deidre McCloskey's bourgeois trilogy: www.deirdremccloskey.com/books/ She finds that the years 1600-1848 were crucial as far as the massive uptick in material wellbeing is concerned.
You need to check out Dr Nathan Jacobs' commentary on Tucker Carlson's conversation with Alexander Dugan.
So true, so true, so true.
So what is your solution to the rise of secularism and the rise of capitalist greed? We all return to the Catholic Church?
One could argue that the puritans of the British colonies did in fact have an all encompassing religious envelope lifestyle.
No, a return to a universal church isn't possible--even if, by some lights, it were desirable.
I would argue along the lines proposed by Vivekananda: there will need to be an *experiential investigation* of the nature of consciousness; this experiential investigation intends to reveal the nature of reality.
Those two sentences are, of course, way too vague; I'll say more about this in the next next video essay (which will appear after the next guided meditation).
The historian Tom Holland makes a similar argument during the Lutherism episodes of in his podcast The Rest Is History
They didn't the Jesuit order of the Catholic Church did which was their reaction to the reformation.
Before watching the video, I think you can drop "unintentionally" ...
Ryan Reeves has a video on Calvin as a Humanist, and compared to the Middle Ages, via adulation of Cicero, that's Secularism.
Thanks for helping us Catholics out..
I'm very fond of the intellectual rigor of certain strands of Catholic thought. I also think that Gregory's claim about "hyperpluralism" is on point. More: www.ethicalsystems.org/a-buddhist-philosophers-antidote-to-modern-nihilism/
Here are some wonderful names: Brad Gregory, a traditional Catholic based at Notre Dame, has written well about these topics. Also noteworthy: the Catholic philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre; the late Catholic theologian Michael Buckley; and the preeminent Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor.
@@secondaxialageolder stuff but good. I like Dr. Hahn, Dr. Brant Pitre, yes Josef Pieper, and Dr. Michael Waldstein.
@@glennlanham6309 Neat, I'll check out these references; thanks for them.
@@secondaxialage What buddhist philosopher?? Why do they keep seeking for answers _outside_ of the faith?
"And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. (2 Cor. 12:9)"
"Thanks for helping us Catholics out.."
Yup, I get the feeling that's what he was going for. He seems to long for a time when everyone agreed. Because would-be dissenters were forcibly silenced. He seems to long for a time when we were spared the burden of choosing our beliefs. Because our beliefs were chosen for us by the powers that be. He seems to long, in short, for a theocratic dictatorship. If you want such a thing, you're in luck, because there are a couple on offer in the Middle East. Not exactly what you were looking for? Well, let's be clear, if you want to be able to choose, then a dictatorship probably isn't for you.
13:06 That's is reflected in this comment section. Take a look.
Unintentionally? That’s being generous.
The reference is to Gregory's earlier book: www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674088054.
16:00 That is exactly what the average atheist person will refuse to do. This is the only thing he/she feels sure to be enlightened enough never to investigate. To imagine the horror of suspecting that maybe, just maybe, there might be a God is what makes them quickly dusmiss the subject by saying things like "I don't need [blank]", or "God us just [blank]“, or anything involving preference for science or rationality as if there can none of this in thinking about trancendent concepts.
Our protestant friends on the other hand are too sola-scriptura-ized to think about this philosofically: suffice to quote this or that passage of the Scripture and you're done. No historical analysis and investigation is necessary.
You video is very interesting because of the perspective by which you approach it. The only sad thing about it is that you need a better audience.
I would like to watch more of your videos on this subject.
Very kind and thoughtful reflections. Thank you for them.
Quite a few atheists simply ask for evidence before they believe.
So, is secularism an inevitable emergence, right?
I don't know that I'd say that it's inevitable--though I see where you're going here. It's more like this: IF A is the case, IF B is the case, and IF C is the case, then D would--contingently but reasonably--be a solution to the problems emerging historically in light of A, B, and C. It wasn't inevitable that northern Europe would secularize--or that it would become as secular as it is today. But it is highly reasonable in light of the specific problems that presented themselves starting in the early 1500s. You could say: "Of course. After the fact, X (here, secularism) makes good historical sense." But "making good historical sense" doesn't convey the further claim: "And it's the best of all solutions that human beings have hitherto come up with." Francis Fukuyama's books might seem to suggest that secularism is a net good, but I tend to think of it as a mixed bag.
I always saw a certain amount of secularism to be inevitable because a certain number of people who are athiest to their core would always exist. Some people can't "just believe."
@@skylinefever I can see how you might think this; it's a very intuitive line of thought today. Let's see how we might have gotten here:
Imagine a late medieval view of a divinely ordered cosmos, one whose Governor is God. Try to imagine how it might feel to be, as it were, inside this "sacred canopy."
It's not really until the nineteenth century that certain developments in modern science and, crucially, certain metaphysical arguments start to make the case for the plausibility of atheism. Atheism becomes quite thinkable.
Then feel what it's like for the twentieth century to slowly, slowly, slowly unfold, with the effect that atheism becomes, at least for some, "obvious."
In sum, much had to happen over a very long period of time in order for atheism to become thinkable--and not just by the few but by the many.
Proud to be Dutch. We gave you freedom of religion and a freehaven for the group that became the pelgrims moving to America.
Yeah, apparently Netherlands was way too tolerant and didn't allow pilgrims to prosecute one another for being wrong christians lol
And stimulated/harboured heresies. ...
This freedom "you gave " goes by the rebellion..
Thank you to your ancestors!
Separation of church and state is the doctrine of keeping the government out of the church.
If religion has evidently become privatized, how do you explain evangelicalism which seems to go against the grain in a rather big way? I can't speak of mainline Protestantism (either liberal or conservative), but evangelicals make up a decently-sized portion of America and take the Great Commission seriously.
Great question. You might be interested--to take a lively historical example--in the Second Great Awakening. Religious conversion "through the heart" isn't inconsistent with the slow march of the "privatization of religion." Indeed, they're quite compatible. There's also a little book by Raymond Geuss called "Public Goods, Private Goods." In it, he analyzes different public/private conceptions.
Because they were only staunch in their struggle against the Papacy..Cromwell regarded both Atheists and Jews as allies against Catholic absolutism and gave them full rights under the Commonwealth..You see if you are truly devout like he was you love your fellow man whether he believes or not..
Guys descartes philosophy and Machiavellis secularism have nothing to do with Catholic belief. Check out Aquianas for that.However nominalism is demonstrably the foundational philosophy of protestantism. Nominalism gives the protestant the right to replace objective revelation and truth with a subjective standard of feeling about how that truth makes him feel. If it doesnt make him feel better about himself and his relaton to God he disregards it and comes up with an interpretation that does the trick. This is thextory of Luther,and is carried on by William of Ockham (HERETIC), KANT , Shrodinger, Hegel, and the mid 19th century protestant theologians whose poison has been imbibed by themodernists in the present Catholic church. BTW humanism is a type of atheism which seeks to replace God with man.
All humans have always wanted the accumulation of material wealth from our most ancient beginnings, and have always struggled with making that as an obsession under any and every religion. What's changed is a democratization of property and the prosperity of industrialization allowing your average person to accumulate, and obsess about accumulating, "manufactured goods" in ways only the rich and powerful could match the vanity of in the past. This transformation would have happened the same under any religion assuming the same private property protection and industrialization had occurred.
These sound, to my ear, like necessary conditions (namely, industrialization, private property rights, plus I'd want to add: the birth and hegemony of modern nation-states) but not like sufficient conditions. For a great treatment of this topic, see Albert Hirschman's short yet elegant "The Passions and the Interests." It's a lovely treatise.
No, I agree, not sufficient, but in light of how I observe the bulk of humanity consistently behaving across constructable history, I would argue enabling.
EDIT: accidentally said necessary instead of sufficient
Just because the Catholic church was intolerant of heretics doesn't mean it was wrong Being persecuted doesnt make somebody right
secularism is a good thing
@@richardhunter132 unqualified?
Heresy begets worse still.
Question
Are we not ignoring the fundamental influence of kaballah and judiac myaticism into protestantism? Capatalism is state sponsoered usury, and debt monetization and modern interest is an advanced form of kaballah / alchemy that allows lenders insane amount of power over all aspects of life by creating artifical scaricty. This allows for a runaway chain reaction of unprecedented growth because value is no longer grounded on actual products, but rather what it is perceived as.
This will have a serious impact on people as suddenly the "economy" becomes more real than God, because money is a type of philosopher stone. This then allows people to think they dont need God. In fact, this is what leads to strange beliefs among calvanists that rationalize their highly immoral behavior as morally god because clearly God has elected me to have a bigger house than those lazy catholics. You can see the residuals of such ideas in America, where we refuse to help our brothers and demand them pick themselves up by their bootstraps.
Nomanalism didmt help, because the moment you strip the spiritual reality of Christianity by dismissing universals, ypuve lost the plot. And the only way to gage if God still on your side os by how materially wealthy and powerful you are (hence why a lot of proteatants, especislly the low churches who are the most judiazed sects, fixate so much on the old testament. Becauae that physical reality is the only measuring stick they have. Which has been disasterous for Christendom.
I find it interesting that East Asia has different religions, but all seem to be line go up econpmies.
Secularism may be seen to be born in Luther's doctrine of the two Kingdoms.
That's Augustine's Doctrine
Om@@goyonman9655 Augustine was City of God City of Man in a Platonic relation. Two Kingdoms is,Luther
@@burtonsankeralli5445
"Platonic relation"
What did Luther name the two kingdoms
Augustine was a Platonist. If my memory of my youth serves Luther spoke of the Kingdom of the right and the Kingdom of the left. The first is that of the inner man of Faith the second that of the outer realm of politics. Basically Luther rejected the Medieval Catholic synthesis of Church and State, eternal and temporal sacred and secular that is why we have an independent secular realm today.
@@burtonsankeralli5445
Wrong
He called them the left hand kingdom and Right hand kingdom
Dont change the words
That is. Part if the same BODY.
That Body being the bride of Christ
This is the opposite of secularism
church separated from state
the goods life replaced the good life, but what comes next after goods run out or becomes unsustainable
@@user-iq2yp1dn1q is that really the lesson to take from ‘Dutch protestantism’, Anglicanism and Lutheranism? The separation appears to be a point where church and state connect in Western Europe at the reformation, prior to that secular and clerical power were some sort of counter balancing force (when it worked properly!)
Did you just figure this out now???? As soon as you left it up to the individual to discern truth, this was inevitable. Scripture becomes the I Ching.
All atheists are Protestants at heart.
agreed😃
12:17 it's at this point I know you know nothing of Hedonism or what Epicures taught. Conflating "stuff" with pleasure is a no in Hedonism. Please stop slandering one of the greatest philosophers and one of the greatest philosophies to ever exist.
The root of hedonism is the fact that all motivation comes down to pleasure and pain.
Someone who seeks short term pleasure that will bring long term pain is not a hedonist. Someone who avoids short term pain when enduring it will bring long term pleasure is not a hedonist.
The author is a Catholic? Everything he writes in his books must be true then.
Secularism was the most nourished in the soil of Catholic France
There's evidence to suggest that you're on to something here. Alan Charles Kors's Atheism in France: 1650-1729 suggests that it was, in fact, scholastic theologians' attempts to shore up Christian theism that led, unwittingly, to an opening for "speculative atheism." By the nineteenth century, accounts of full-blown materialism (especially d'Holbach's) that began to seem, at least, plausible.
Mostly due to influence of Anglo-Freemasonry
Martin Luther was the first cafeteria Catholic. He went into a pub, had a few, wrote out some things that pissed him off about the church and mailed them off to his bishop (the thing about nailing them to the church door was a myth). Even though he was a Catholic priest, he was a piss poor one and tossed out the parts of Catholicism that were inconvenient for him. Then he set himself up as the leader of his own cult of anti-Catholic beliefs. He even picked and chose the books of the bible for his new religion.
I still think the emergence of secularism and humanism were, on the whole, profoundly liberating, especially with regard to elevating universal human interests over traditional and institutional prerogatives and weakening aurhoritarian systems meant to enforce conformity of thought, segregation of classes, mobilizing societies for war and repression, and enforcing social dominance hierarchies, such as patriarchy and caste systems. Problematic as it may be that modern society has faileled at addressing universal spiritual needs, if any proposed solution involves a return to that sort of ideology, I, for one, am not remotely interested.
More humans were killed in the 20th century in the post enlightenment wars of political ideology then all religious wars over the last 2000 years combined.
We've just replaced those authoritarian religious structures with secular authoritarian structures that still try and enforce their own ideals and ethics on the Population. The UN & EU has replaced the Catholic Church. Gender studies and Intersectional feminism has replaced theological studies at University's. We have woke commissars in HR departments across large corporations evangelizing and enforcing progressive ideology down everybody's throats. People are cancelled for "wrong-think" and have their lives destroyed in a way similar to the inquisition.
I fail to see how secularism progressivism is anyless dogmatic then it's predecessor - Christianity.
Marxist and liberal philosophy has racked up way many more deaths then Christianity ever could :
Holodomor
Killing fields in Cambodia
Cultural revolution in China
Genocide in the vendee France during the revolution and reign of Terror.
The Russian revolution.
Cold war proxy wars.
They make the crusades look like child's play.
I don't think that secularism is "all bad"; if anything, it's cleared the ground for deeper understanding in many regards. But I do think there's a need for an aufheben--meaning "supersesssion" or "sublation" of the current trenchant dichotomies. The "meaning crisis," as John Vervaeke and others have termed it, can't be denied. Consider the rampant use and misuse of opioids as *a symptom*--just one, even--of the crisis of meaning. It doesn't strike me as a sufficient explanation to speak only in class terms about drug overdoses. That may not be wrong, but it's not sufficient either. Meaning is at stake.
I see the problem of some people not being able to even get religion in the first place.
I think about one time George Carlin made a clean joke. "You were in Catholic school for 12 years. Why aren't you Catholic? Because I was in Catholic school for 12 years!"
@@skylinefever Honestly, in the many twists and turns spent getting where I am now from a Methodist background through the a period of influence from high demand Evangelicalism, through my education as a physicist, I spent a lot of time reading trying to find a more rational, open-minded, and liberal sort of Christianity that respected the need for intellectual coherence. I read tons of books on it. In that process, I came to have some respect for the broad range Catholic of traditions, which, despite their authoritarian and sometimes superstitious tendencies, at least had a broad enough range of acceptable sub traditions and perspectives, ranging from the mystical (personal experience) to philosophical and rational understandings. I appreciate that the freedom from Biblical literalism afforded by their (abeit authoritarian) clericalism allowed them to develop a broad tradition that accommodates the full range of human propensities and personality types. For example, Thomism gives a consistent philosophical framework that can accommodate all of it together. Conservative protestantism and the ultra traditionalist Catholicism, which are the dominant forces driving our politics now, are literally 100% anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-humanistic, intolerant and narrowly conformist, sectarian, and authoritarian. That's a step 400 or 500 years backwards.
The author of this post likes Hegel a lot. What is needed for what he wants is a genuine new synthesis. This will *destroy* traditionalism. Expect a violent backlash before getting to that.
@@michaelrogers4834 I was stuck with the Southern Baptist Convention, and it was miserable.
I couldn't "just believe" and actually fell "saved." Nothing I did made a difference. Others treated me with disbelief. It was like I was the one person born without a so called "God shaped hole." That or God couldn't be bothered to show up.
The lower nobles wanted the Catholic lands and the priests and nuns wanted sex. Luther's theology was just a means to an end - sex and land. He was a nominalist and that is a very modern idea that turned Christendom on its head.
Wealth, power and sex have always been the big drives, religion is one of the mean by which the powerful maintain and increase their power. Moses was old and losing it when he gave the 10 commandments.
Only Protestants see Protestantism in positive way I assure them
Only because we see Pope Leo's reaction to being caught in a fund-raising scheme with the Archbishop of Magdeburg as worse. They were both pursuing the "goods" life. Had Leo decided there were more important things than his prerogatives; had Albert thought better of buying yet another bishopric (Mainz) (*contrary to church law*), financed by the sale of indulgences -- the grievances raised by the obscure Augustinian monk, with the best of priestly intentions, might have been disposed of in a much more amicable fashion.
The real mid-wife of secularism was Leo X. A revolt is just the sort of thing that can happen when you abuse your authority to bitch slap someone who calls you out for your malfeasance.
Do you think that most people are not capable of creating meaning in their lives without religion?
I’ve been doing a bit of writing about this, how in modern times meaning isn’t naturally found as easily. It’s not inherited through a collective belief in the divine, but rather something that must be courted and cultivated.
I think that people who are less creative and more consumptive have a much harder time living meaningful lives because they just go along with mass culture.
But ultimately I see this as a skill that is independent of religion that must be cultivated in a practical way. I don’t think that a return to religion is realistic or even aligned with most people’s authentic desires. But I do wholly agree that there are some behavioral and belief aspects of religious practice that can be beneficial for individuals trying to reach their full potential.
Not much room for society , family or the nation in that hyper individualist view . Most people can't simply invent an "authentic " identity for themselves. IMHO it's quite an arrogant undertaking too.
@@colmoneill191 “People in the past were more capable of seeing the truth. Modern people must be told what to believe.”
This is the implied meaning from what you’ve said.
What position is actually more arrogant here? Because it sounds like it’s yours. Self reliance doesn’t entail an absence of pro social behavior.
"Do you think that most people are not capable of creating meaning in their lives without religion?" I'm not sure that I can answer that question in a TH-cam comment. Needless to say, the question turns on the nature of meaning. What is meaning? Premoderns tell us that it's "discovered" while moderns claim that it is "made" or "created." But we'd first need to investigate what it is before we can answer the discovery/creation question.
@@secondaxialage That is the very thing that is liberating about the modern perspective, that it has some subjective, perhaps irrational nature. So often people claim to have the “one meaning” only in order to claim authority over the souls of others that don’t align with it.
Yes.
There is famost painting where Lucifer wisper into Luther,s ear what to do… there is nothing in this universe that describes Protestantism better, but the Satan,s own work
As an Atheist from childhood, I have no need for the notion of transcendence. I would not say that what we have is nihilism, but opportunity. There are many ways of living our lives and the Western model of wealth, choice and freedom gives us these possibilities. People can choose the lifestyle that matches their personalities.
Even though quite a few of my friends are religious, I have no idea why they believe these things but it is up to them. I prefer to think about the material world, it is far more fascinating than what we can imagine.
The proliferation of individualism is an evolutionary response to heightened stress and competition for resources. It can actually be maladaptive to be religious these days.
The diversity of survival strategies is a magnificent achievement for the autonomy of intellectual and social movement, but it does come with some issues of its own, especially with people who aren’t smart or well adjusted enough to develop meaning on their own.
the wealth of the west is not eternal , the opportunity that it gives are chimeras , like the other they will dissapear , please don't cling to them , that would make you resistant to a lot of illusions
Cope
Pt. 1: The charge of atheism being immoral doesn't have any legs to stand on. That claim, made by French Catholics and Huguenots and the seventeenth century, was shown--for instance, by Confucians living admirably in China--to lack any persuasive power. So, morality or ethics isn't really in question.
Pt. 2: As for not needing "something more": I used to feel that way too. Sometimes (say, after the loss of a loved one, or after some deeply confusing experience), something stirs in you. I call it "a convulsive experience" or "an existential opening." In light of that experience, you may be open to, let's say, the weirdness of reality. You start searching, often haphazardly. It's all very fuzzy, but inevitably a broader picture of reality begins to be intelligible. Now, is this everyone's path? No. Some--perhaps you're one of them--seem to live quite contentedly within the parameters set forth by the modern world.
@@secondaxialage Glad to see you don’t interpret atheism as evil. I’ve experienced what you described as an existential opening many times. It seems personally at least they always lead toward a search of some kind of new insight that’s hidden and not apparent yet. It’s quite interesting how different people go in different ideological directions in these times. I think it is quite common to delve into books and concepts that have tangible things to help make sense of uncomfortable realities.
America refused that definition because deterministic simplicity here English & pragmaticism pushes complexity there individuals liberal responsibility to condition oneself. Physicalism subject to change without notice on par with idealism.
It's obviously more rooted in Europe's solution to different word & world views.
catholic, orthodox, Jewish populationd not to mention Athest Islam close proximity. 1945s Smith_mundt act in America to accommodate Mass discplament immigration is the strong evidence. They cried this bill of rights is to trinitarian while Italian cried it's not nicean creed enough and Athest ,aristocracy switching into socialism or full blown nepotism communism all took advantage of the call to arms just as they had back in Europe then England then usa.
Luther couldn't go far enough in hopes of actually reforming catholicism.
East India company under the control of parliament had played as a very unlikely partnership in that they despised how newton come to his conclusions. They all found unity through the great debate and darwin..to the point that even England itself views king James English Bible and America as national security threats even to this very day. Lol
Why the American founders chose 3 lines of measure = saved by for thru = truest flattest surface tunes all precision instruments associations is because metamorphosis in reverse = textualism methodology objectivism = technological advancements in concert with free flow of information education granted deterministic measure pushing infinite sums of complexity elsewhere.
Evidence in our world today brings everyone on par to why spirit of God hovering over the waters of cosmos nature building breathe of life giving correlated soul agency driver of free will inertia to evolve our frame of reference how we see fit . To become kings of our own castles master of our own domain to sense the universe in all its glory.
The shining capital on the hill is human species as we know it is reaching optimization & eqaulibrium at the highest order without destroying the flesh mind or soul.
But a call to arms and great debate later we are dualistic servitude personal actors of response to a state with liberal power to evolve us how they see fit and 1st order of business under absolute centralized power was to deny our soul agency and recruit the most abstract Euclidean minds good memorization skills tend to be passive niave and submissive.
The anylitical mind to bang heads on a tree while the forest is being burned down by meglamanic syncrabs who plagerize and propagandize every whataboutism & nilhisms they can.
Censorship or all things pragmatic common sense objectivism proper
Keep everyone stuck in prayer logic whataboutism conservatism vs cursed rationalism progressive interventionism nilhisms!
America founders didn't want to choose the path it's just the reality of our situation that will only force the world to submit to now that Pandora box is open .
How to maintain that which unify us with animals the primordial self /soul agency subjective properties of space Devided in /individual emerging energetic atoms of physical objects . Lattus structure and body personal actors free will inertia idealistic objects and frame of reference critical extreme states or environment.
Xyz, manmade time hierarchy knowledge of good evil equations. This is the primordial self +
dualistic brain = 3 lines of measure = eqaulibrium judgment of thermodynamical system at large
I’ve always assumed that "Render unto Caesar" implies the clear separation of church and state.
I'm not a biblical scholar. I took a cursory glance: it looks as though interpretations of the relationship between divine authority and "secular" power range quite widely.
Suffice it to say, the separation argument wins out, ultimately, in the United States--but not without unforeseen consequences. The more and more faith becomes a strictly "inner dimension" to an individual's life, the less "cosmological" and "all-encompassing" it becomes. It's not hard to see how naturalism, materialism/physicalism, and atheism could have taken hold as we make the long march toward, and through, modernity.
Hmm. The argument presented doesn't really describe Prosperity Gospel evangelism. But it does sort of explain the Consumer Church of Disney.
Secularism was mandated by Jesus himself in his response to the Pharisees' question whether they should pay taxes to Rome: "Give back unto Caesar the things of Caesar and unto God the things of God." Unkess, of course, by that saying he meant, "Romans go home!"
"People named 'Romanes'; they go to the house?"
Nope, ask a proper catholic theologian. A priest.
Thst is NOT the meaning of this sentence...
People refer to teachers for math, law, architecture but do bot do this for the high religion...
@@AS-np3yq I have a Catholic edition of the scriptures, the New American Bible. There's nothing in the footnotes to the Matthean account that goes against separation of Church and State. Ditto the Marcan and Lukan accounts.
But at the beginning of Luke 23 the whole Sanhedrin (chief priests, etc ) brought Jesus before Pilate, alleging that he opposed the payment of taxes to Rome.
So somebody must have thought and convinced the others that by his "Give unto Caesar... Give unto God" remark he meant, "Romans go home!" For is not the land of Israel the LORD'S?
Besides the separation of church and state has proven beneficial to both. It keeps government out of the religious organizations' affairs, and it compels the churches to try to be good and compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Cool story, unfortunately the French Revolution took place in the most Catholic country at the time so L
It was instigated by Anglo-Freemasons who originate from wicked Anglo-presbyterians
Secularism is created by Jesus himself. He said his kingdom is not of this world and refused the position of king many times. Thus stating that Christianity and state can not be joined.
Jesus was literally a king lol
@@tedarcher9120 and where was his kingdom supposed to be LOL?
@@DartNoobo in Israel
@@tedarcher9120 John 6:15
Therefore Jesus, knowing they were about to come and seize him to make him king, withdrew again into the mountain all alone.
John 18:36 Jesus answered: “My kingdom is no part of this world. If my kingdom were part of this world, my attendants would have fought that I should not be delivered up to the Jews. But, as it is, my kingdom is not from this source.”
King of Israel LMAO
@@DartNoobo When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, “Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.”