CONSTRUCTING A NEW PARADIGM OF MAN AND SOCIETY:THE ENLIGHTENMENT

Newton and his predecessors had demolished the medieval view of nature. Hence it was the task of Enlightenment philosophers during the 18th century to construct a new view of man and society which would fit into the new scientific view of reality. Why? If one examines the various world-views expressed by human cultures throughout the planet, one notices that every cultural paradigm has two fundamental characteristics— a macro view of nature and a micro view of human nature and society. One further notes that there is a consistency within each world view in the process by which cultures conceptualize both. That is, a culture's view of the workings of nature will consistently pertain to their view of human nature. This was the case in the medieval world-view. Nature was perceived to be a hierarchy of being ascending from inanimate material, to lower life forms, to man, finally reaching the most spiritualized beings (e.g. saints and angels) residing with God in heaven. Similarly, the social structure was viewed as an ascending hierarchy with the peasants responsible for physical labor, to the highest class, the priests who had spiritual responsibilities. In both cases reality was perceived as a consistent pattern of increasingly spiritual beings. Man's approach to reality was to utilize nature's physical dimension (animals and plants) to sustain his physical being. But guided by the teachings of the clergy, humans were to also read nature's bounty from a spiritual-moral perspective as well. To achieve salvation, one had to read God's handiwork to become educated as to man's purpose in life. Hence a sunrise was a constant reminder of Christ's resurrection; a sunset a grim reminder of the forthcoming Day of Judgment. Nature provided for man's physical and spiritual needs, consistent with his twofold aspect of being both of the flesh and the spirit.

As we have seen, the revolution in physics and astronomy during the 17th century did much to demolish the old Ptolemaic-Aristotelian world-view. Newton had given a comprehensive new view of reality. The universe was now viewed from a scientific, secular standpoint. The hierarchy of being was replaced by a picture of nature which consisted of physical objects controlled in space and time by natural laws. The same natural forces moved the planets, raised the tides, and caused apples to fall from trees. God had been pushed far into the background, no longer residing "out there." For it was apparent that "out there" simply was a continuation of absolute space— hence characterized by the same laws of physics.

As a result, this new view of reality demanded the construction of an equally new view of human nature and society. If man was no longer seen as a two fold creature (spirit and body), then what was he? The 18th century philosophers began at the appropriate departure point— with Newton. Newton had shown:

1. Nature was guided by natural laws.

2. These laws are discoverable through human reason.The philosophes added another corollary. Man is a part of nature; therefore man must follow natural laws as well. That is, there must be a set of natural laws which define what man is as a physical being. If one looks carefully enough one can uncover man's "essence," his "natural" needs, capacities, and desires. How did these 18th century thinkers go about doing this? One might

1

assume that they adopted the rigorous scientific method of the natural scientists, to embrace the same empirical methodology of Galileo and Newton. Yes and no. Certainly the philosophes were interested in gathering information about various cultures throughout the world. After all, the Enlightenment was occurring when European explorers continued to make voyages throughout the world.

But the philosophes did not approach this information in any consistent, rigorous fashion, for intellectuals such as Hobbes, Locke, and Montesquieu were European thinkers who never traveled far from their home countries in Western Europe. Furthermore, reports coming back from North America, Tahiti, Japan, India and elsewhere were neither comprehensive nor objective. The workings of human nature, found in its wide cultural diversity, was also far more complex then the movement of the planets. Therefore, the social sciences (anthropology, psychology, history, economics, etc.) did not fully emerge until the later 19th century.

So what approach did the 18th century philosophes take? Their strategy was as follows:

1. They tried to deduce the underlying essence of human nature by assuming that every human being, regardless of his cultural and natural environment, is basically the same. As all mountains, trees, and planets each share common physical characteristics, so human beings, as natural creatures, must also share common species characteristics. In this sense, the Enlightenment was universalistic in believing that all humans are members of the same "natural family," thus basically sharing the same aptitudes, desires, and needs.

2. The philosophes tried to "take man's clothes off." That is, assuming that as natural creatures, we all share certain common features, the variation in human practices and beliefs seen throughout the world were perceived to be an accidental result of differing natural environments. In a sense, varying cultural practices— religion, diet, values, traditions— were seen as secondary. The philosophes wanted to probe underneath these superficial qualities to determine the basic needs, aptitudes, and desires that all humans share regardless of the accidental circumstances of cultural birth.

3. The philosophes conceptualized an imaginary "State of Nature," a time when humans existed prior to the historical development of family, language, custom, government, or religion. This was more of a deductive hypothesis than an actual time in man's historical evolution. But in a sense, the philosophes tried to imagine a secular "Garden of Eden," a time when humans were, in a sense, "naked." That is, an era when humans existed without clothes, government, or family. Consequently the intense curiosity in the "Noble Savage," the desire to find out as much as possible about "primitive" cultures, for the philosophes believed such peoples continued to live closest to that imaginary state of nature.

2

Man in the State of Nature

The philosophes believed that in this state of nature, human beings were at first a-social, autonomous human beings. This was an atomistic world-view best expressed by Defoe's novel Robinson Crusoe, a novel popular at this time. Human beings were viewed as "rugged individuals," completely free, answering only to their own needs, not socially bound to family, society, or government. For these institutions did not yet exist. Every person was his own monarch as well as home builder and chef. What did these autonomous human beings do? Very simply, they spent their days accumulating property. That is, though their individual labors they took from nature, or constructed objects from nature to fit their basic needs— life (personal preservation), food, warmth, shelter.

The philosophes were not under the illusion that this process was ever easy, however free. As Thomas Hobbes stated, "Life was nasty, brutish, and short." The reason being that individual freedom also entailed political anarchy. For what happens if two autonomous human beings reach for the same apple, so to speak? How was such conflict to be resolved?

Here, the philosophes argued, man took the greatest human step forward. For human beings, recognizing the state of anarchy to be ultimately undesirable, they entered into a "social contract." Individuals decided to enter into a state of society, and this implied giving up a certain amount of one's original, unrestricted freedom. The social contract, in simplest terms, was a set of rules which each autonomous being agreed to obey. Human individuals were willing to sacrifice some of their "innate" freedoms, guaranteed in the original state of nature, in exchange for the preservation of life and property. That is, personal freedom was partially exchanged for the societal guarantee that one's life and possessions would be secured. As John Locke, the famous British philosopher commented,

"Man being, by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of his state (of nature) and subjected to the political will of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community(social contract) for their enjoyment of their personal properties."

How many rules were necessary to create the social contract? The philosophes generally agreed that the fewer rules the better. "The best society is the society that governs the least." In other words, the true purpose of society was to guarantee life and property, but simultaneously preserve the maximum human freedom. A valid social contract will preserve, in a sense, the original state of nature as much as possible. Hence the social contract was to protect "life, liberty, and property"— the Enlightenment secular trinity. All Enlightenment thinkers believed that individuals should be left alone as much as possible. As long as social stability was preserved, individuals should be allowed to pursue their own personal desires. Society was to obviously arbitrate human conflict, but beyond this, allow humans to freely pursue their own rationally conceived individual interests.

3

It’s interesting to note that this view of a society best governed by the fewest rules applied to other aspects of the social contract as well. The best religion is the religion that "governs the least." The eighteenth century de-emphasized the importance of dogma or theology. Religion's sole task was to promote respect for life and property. This accomplished, people should be left alone to form their own religious opinions on matters of belief. In the ultimate sense, the philosophes were indifferent as to whether a person was a Muslim, Jew, or Christian. As Voltaire, the Enlightenment's great philosopher stated, "To worship God and to leave every other man free to worship Him in his own way— this is my religion." As man has a universal nature, so the various religions are simply variations of the single expression of "Truth." Consequently, leave it to each person to find it in his own way. As Voltaire further commented, "There are no sects in geometry."

This same rule of simplicity and minimal social restraint was applied to all other aspects of human society— education, art, economic theory, penal reform, even music, literature, and architecture. The ornate music of the Baroque, whose masters were Bach and Handel, gave way to the grace and charm of Neo-classicism, the works of Mozart and Haydn. The erotic grandeur of Baroque artistic works by Rubens, Caravaggio, and Bernini gave way to the refined style of Houdon and David. The fluid oratory of Milton and Shakespeare was replaced by the new principles of simple clarity in the writings of Pope, Dryden, Johnson, and Swift. Emotionalism and theatricality were out; human reason, simplicity, and intellectual restraint came in.

What became of heaven and hell in this new, fully secular view of human nature and society? Not surprisingly, these terms became defined in secular form as well. Heaven became an earthly goal, which Jefferson defined as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The expectation for the next world was replaced by a human confidence that human fulfillment could be achieved here on earth. In a sense, the Enlightenment resurrected the Renaissance humanist world view, seeing the religious wars of the Reformation era as a tragic interruption of this vision. The Enlightenment simply broadened the Renaissance's world view, giving it a comprehensive scientific foundation. Hell was redefined as being earthly societal restrictions which thwarted the individual's pursuit of happiness, prosperity, and freedom. That is, any institution, whether it be religious or political, economic or social, which stood in the way of human initiative was perceived by the philosophes to be "hellish." As Voltaire argued, "Man is not born wicked; he becomes so in the same way that he becomes sick." The implication is that human folly is a result of bad social environment— bad government, bad education, the lack of economic opportunity, the burden of superstition and human ignorance.

Consequently, the rallying cry of the 18th century philosophes was a call for rational reform. No tradition—religious, political, or economic— was to be accepted without question. Instead every institution was to be held up to the rational ideal of the social contract: "Do these institutions as they presently exist promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" If they do not serve well these ideals, they should be significantly modified, reformed, or even abolished. Guided by these new ideas, human society must be reconstructed, from the ground up if necessary, but reconstructed nevertheless.

4

In the final analysis, the Enlightenment was an age of optimism, a time when human reason smiled most confidently. It placed human destiny squarely in human hands. Truth, justice, and liberty were neither God’s gifts nor special privileges of powerful princes and kings. These were human ideals which should ultimately be extended to all. If societal restrictions could be removed, the possibility of human perfectibility was achievable here on earth. In our own time...

Religion

The Enlightenment philosophes were suspicious of religion. Having seen that the Reformation had produced 150 years of religious conflict, the philosophes argued for religious toleration and separation of church and state. Impressed by the findings of science, many Enlightenment thinkers argued for atheism or Deism. Deism was the belief that God was a Great Clock-Maker, who having created the universe according to natural laws, sat back indifferently and watched it run by itself according to those natural laws. In essence, this world view was far more secular than religious, for it offered no place for miracles. Furthermore, Jesus was viewed primarily as an ethical teacher, a moral philosopher closer to Socrates than the Hebrew prophets.

"Someone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Voltaire

"Theology amuses me, for there we find man's insanity in all its abundance."

Voltaire

"God is always on the side with the biggest battalions."Voltaire

"The resurrection of Christ is the most notorious and monstrous imposture that was ever put on mankind."

Thomas Walston

"There is nothing more terrible than ignorance in action."Goethe

"Miracles are natural occurrences that only seem supernatural because they lay outside of man's present state of knowledge."

John Locke

"A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature and therefore cannot happen."

David Hume

"I have only asked one favor of God in my lifetime...that he make my enemies appear stupid...and God granted it!"

Voltaire

“Let us eat some Jesuit!”Voltaire

5

Government

Enlightenment thinkers were likewise dissatisfied with earlier theories of government. They did not believe in rule by divine right. Because the philosophers saw much of the past as being dominated by ignorance and superstition, they also did not accept governmental authority simply because it resulted from previous traditions.

So where does true governmental authority come from? Most 18th century thinkers argued that power is derived from the people. That is, the establishment of government is a contract between the governed and those who govern. People voluntarily give up some of their original unlimited freedom in order to insure life, liberty, and property. But government must respond to this loss of personal freedom by guaranteeing, in exchange, civil liberties, protection of private property, and the limited promotion of social welfare.

Although these beliefs were widely held by all the Enlightenment philosophes, they nevertheless frequently disagreed as to how the government should actually be structured. For example, Voltaire and Hobbes called for the establishment of absolute monarchy - i.e. enlightened despotism. Locke, Jefferson, and Montesquieu argued for the separation of power and constitutional checks upon the monarchy. Rousseau, the most radical 18th century political thinker, believed that democracy was the most suitable form of government, for it would allow all citizens to equally participate in promoting the "general will."

In every form of government there are three sorts of power: the legislative, the executive and the judicial.

Montesquieu, the Spirit of the Laws

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitled them...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence

Man being, by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this state and subjected to the political will of another without his own consent, which is done by agreeing with other men, to join and unite into a community for their enjoyment of their personal properties...

John Locke, Two Treatises on Government

We each of us place, in common, his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the General Will; and we receive into the body-politic each member as an indivisible part of the whole...In this form of association the person and property of each individual, while united with all, shall obey only himself, and remain free...

Rousseau, the Social Contract

6

We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union; establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Preamble to the Constitution

Economics

The greatest Enlightenment exponent of 18th century economic thought and the father of modern economics is Adam Smith. In his famous work, Wealth of Nations, Smith argued that true wealth resides in the productive capabilities of a nation's people. The best way to release these productive energies is through a governmental policy of laissez-faire. That is, governments should basically stay out of business activities. Smith argued that the market place, or to put it another way, the forces of supply and demand are the natural, hence correct mechanisms that determine wages, prices, and the kind of goods that a society produces. Hence, royal monopolies, tariff restrictions, quotas, craft-guilds, fixed prices, etc. are all inefficient and harmful practices which restrict economic prosperity and the growth of a nation's wealth. By allowing each person to freely pursue his own economic interests will ultimately benefit the society as a whole.

Every individual is continually exerting himself to find the most advantageous employment of whatever wealth he can command. But in the pursuit of his own individual gain, without the interference of governmental intervention, his individual actions will ultimately, through the invisible law of supply and demand, most advantageously benefit the society as a whole...

Adam Smith

It is not from the social compassion of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest...

Adam Smith

Education

Previous to the Enlightenment, education was in the hands of the church. Students were not seen as children, but as small adults - sinful, ignorant, and indifferent to self-improvement. Hence, the primary methods of education were the rod, long hours of rote memorization, and hard benches. The curriculum basically derived from the Scriptures and a few classical texts. The teacher stood before the class, and with absolute authority imparted his knowledge to passive students.

With the coming of the Enlightenment, however, thinkers such as Locke and Rousseau, argued that bad environments, not bad children, are the true source of ignorance and human underdevelopment. Rousseau argued that traditional education had failed because it treated children as adults in miniature and stuffed their minds with material that is beyond their comprehension, of little interest, and often of little value. Rousseau argued that a curriculum should be built around a child's intellectual, physical, and emotional development. Teachers should assess the student's needs, answer their self-generated questions, and build an appropriate curriculum around their psychological stage of development. The primary curriculum, of course, should come from nature.

Plants are improved by cultivation, and men by education...Rousseau

Nature intends that children shall be children before they are adults. If we insist on reversing this order we shall have fruit that is unripe and tasteless, and liable to early decay...Childhood has its own methods of seeing, thinking, and feeling...

7

Rousseau

My pupil, or rather nature's pupil, is trained from the first to depend upon himself, and not continually running to others for advice...He early gains a wide experience, and takes his lessons from nature, not from men...

Rousseau

THE ENLIGHTENMENT AND CHRISTIANITY

Reasons for the Attack1. The power of science—Newton had revealed the universe to be guided by natural laws. So as Galileo commented, "Where is God? Well, he's not up there, spinning the universe like some vast toy."

2. Increasing awareness of a wider world. Explorers such as Captain Cooke were bringing back information about diverse cultures. Hence they were frequently revealing that many non-Christian cultures (e.g. Tahiti) exhibited Judeo-Christian values oftentimes more consistently than Europe had during the religious conflicts.

3. Maturing historical scholarship probed into the Christian past with increasing antagonistic sophistication (e.g. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire; (see Handbook pp.3-43 to 3-45) the beginnings of Higher Biblical Criticism by the German scholar Hermann Reimarus (1694-1768). His work, published posthumously, argued that scholars must differentiate the historical Jesus from the Christology of the gospel writers. He was the first historian to systematically apply historical methodology to the study of biblical scriptures.

4. The 18th century was a time of prosperity and relative peace. Wars that were fought were carried out by professional armies, expensive to train and place in the field. Civilian populations were largely unaffected. It seems to be an anthropological-psychological fact that times of crisis turn people's eyes to the heavens. Hence the inverse also seems to be true.

5. There was a widespread disgust with the fanaticism of the religious conflicts of the late 16th and early 17th centuries.

Intellectual Program1. The dominant attitude was Deism—the belief that God was a Great Clock Maker (put forth in the teleological argument) who designed the universe according to natural laws, then removed Himself from active intervention. Such views looked upon God with such abstraction that it left little room for emotional response. The 18th century also witnessed the first atheists—e.g. La Mettrie and D'Holbach.

2. The philosophes advocated religious toleration and separation of church and state. Enlightenment thinkers agreed that religion served an important role for the uneducated masses. That is, religion would instill within the uneducated a sense of morality and

8

respect for law, social order, and the sanctity of property. But there was an underlying sense that education would increasingly make orthodox religious doctrine useless. As Voltaire commented, "When discussing matters of philosophy and theology, one should first excuse the servants from the room."3. Increasing separation between the medieval synthesis of reason and revelation. Now Enlightenment thought used reason to attack Christian thought, seeing it as largely a result of non-scientific, superstitious thought. Note Kant's attack upon the medieval scholastic arguments for the existence of God.

4. Among the educated, the Enlightenment influenced middle class, the new heaven was increasingly becoming the idea of the "perfectibility of man", historically achievable on earth. This was an earthly goal equated with material progress, political freedom, and the development of rational mind.

Specific PracticesENGLAND: The process of translation. The Anglican Church's 26 bishops were awarded

promotions by the British prime minister as a result of their service to his political party. For example, Benjamin Hoadley during the early 18th century was consistently promoted t increasingly lucrative ecclesiastical posts, finally receiving the Archbishop of Canterbury position in 1715. His remarks reveal how secularized the church leadership had become. "Since Christ's Kingdom was not of this world, the church had no right to exercise power over worldly matters ..." He further denounced "religious enthusiasm" and called upon "true Christians" to become "generous, humane, tolerant, but avoid bigotry and fanaticism."

SWITZERLAND: Voltaire noted in a visit to Calvinist Geneva during the 1750's that the Puritan ministers continued to believe in the divine inspiration of scriptures, but were disinclined to believe in the divinity of Christ. The majority of their sermons focused upon the rational, compassionate, and goodly nature of man.

AMERICAN COLONIES: Jefferson, like all of our founding forefathers, was a deist. He had a special personal bible in which he cut out all of the miraculous scriptural passages, only preserving Jesus' ethical teachings. Note that his Declaration of Independence refers to " nature and nature's God ..." Also note that the Constitution of the United States makes no reference to God. The Preamble, which establishes the purpose for founding the new nation begins, "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union..."

FRANCE: The Catholic Church in France during the 18th century increasingly became divided between rich and poor. Similar to the Medieval Church on the eve of the Reformation, the upper ecclesiastical offices were held by members of the nobility, many of them affected by the ideals and secular impulses of the Enlightenment. Out of the 130 bishops in France in the 1780's, only one came from a common background.

Similar to their Protestant European counterparts, Catholic sermons were devoid of the "unpleasant " aspects of the faith— i.e. references to Hell, damnation, or original sin, etc. Catholic priests stressed that faith/grace was a "contract" between the contractual obligation by providing salvation.

9

The decadence, worldliness, and wealth of the French Catholic Church during the 18th century provided ample opportunities for philosophe attacks. The fact that they controlled censorship of the press, yet were frequently "free thinkers" themselves further fueled public perceptions of ecclesiastical hypocrisy. In 1785 when there was a proposal to elevate the current Archbishop of Toulouse to the top office of Archbishop of Paris, Louis XVI replied, "no, the future Archbishop of Paris should at least believe in God."

The state of the Catholic leadership in France fueled widespread anti-clericalism. This would have explosive consequences when the Revolution broke out in 1789.

AUSTRIA: Joseph II (1780-1790) was the most aggressive of the Enlightened despots. He granted religious toleration to all major dominations, being the first European monarch to grant widespread tolerance to Jews, even granting government offices and ennobling them for their dedicated service. He nationalized the Austrian Catholic Church, increased taxes on church lands, closed ineffectual monasteries, and put pressure on the pope to disband the Jesuits.

THE PAPACY: The Jesuits, the "shock troops of the Catholic Counter Reformation" were increasingly under ideological and political attack in the second half of the 18th century. Viewed as aggressive, fanatical, supportive of a universal Catholic Church above the powers of European Catholic monarchs, and the strongest of the Catholic monastic orders, this institution was a special target of the Enlightenment. During the 1760's most Jesuit orders were expelled from almost all Catholic countries. In 1773, the pope disbanded the order. (It would be resurrected in the post-French Revolution era).

Quotations

"The first clergyman was the first sly rogue who encountered the first fool." Voltaire

"Religions are all alike founded upon fables and mythologies." -Jefferson

"I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature... " Jefferson

"Revealed religion has no weight with me..." Franklin

"What has been Christianity's fruits? Superstition, bigotry, and persecution." James Madison

"I disbelieve all holy men and holy books..."Thomas Paine

"In no instances have the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people..." James Madison

10

""Religion is excellent stuff for keeping the common people quiet..."Napoleon

Reaction Against the Secular Enlightenment1. Keep in mind that these ideas were only current, similar to Renaissance precepts, among the educated classes—e.g. the growing middle classes, aristocracy, higher clergy, and the royal and provincial courts. Statistics are difficult in this age still previous to accurate and comprehensive census data. But no more than 20% of Europe's population were significantly affected by these ideas, and most of these people lived in the urban areas of Western Europe.

2. In England and Germany respectively we see a more religious-evangelical response to the overly secular, rational, and political dominated Anglican and Lutheran churches. In England the 18th century witnessed the rise of the Methodist movement, initiated by John Wesley in 1738. His movement stressed charismatic preaching, evangelicalism, and a lifestyle of piety. In Germany the Pietism movement, actually instituted in the 17th century, gathered strength in the 18th century, stressing similar goals as the Methodists in England. Both movements were the strongest among the lower classes, those people who were uneducated and poor, hence beyond the reach of an Enlightenment education.

3. The last decades of the 18th century witnessed the initial impulses of Romanticism, an intellectual-artistic movement which would dominate the first half of the 19th century. Romanticism had many causes, (see Handbook pp. VII-3 to VII-5), but its stress upon emotionalism, irrationalism, and its nostalgia for the Middle Ages can in part be seen as a reaction against the rationalistic and secular impulses of the Age of Enlightenment. It's first major prophet was Rousseau, a "romantic in an age of reason.. ."

Final CommentsThe Romantic revolt, already hinted at in the late 18th century, revealed major

weaknesses in the Enlightenment world view. Its stress upon human reason was reductionistic in failing to account for the darker, emotional, even irrational impulses within humans. By simply attributing such behaviors to ignorance and superstition disguised deeper and more complex impulses within the human condition. The Romantics, Darwin, and Freud would resurrect concern for these impulses during the course of the 19th century.

The philosophes' secular world view de-mystified the universe to such an extent that many felt no emotional attachment to the world of nature. The Western world's disregard and abuse of nature gained great impetus during the 18th century. As we shall see later, the 18th century witnessed the Industrial Revolution in England, and this great economic revolution was partially fueled by this rather sterile Enlightenment view towards nature.

The major weakness of science is that it provides no morality. That is, the Newtonian equations, or any scientific formulas for that matter, do not tell us how to act, what to believe, how to determine what is right and wrong, good or bad, just or unjust. F=ma does not tell us what we "ought" to do. As philosophers have pointed out frequently, there is a seemingly large chasm which separates "is" (how nature and reality works) from "ought" (questions of purpose, meaning, and value). The Enlightenment philosophes were slow to realize this, if they ever truly did. But the pervasive domination of science and the rational world view

11

continues to haunt the pervasive domination of science and the rational world view continues to haunt Western Man.

The Enlightenment philosophes seemed to equate happiness with the rational acquisition of material items (i.e. Locke and Smith). Furthermore, their view of man in a state of nature, the philosophical foundation for much Enlightenment thinking, was overly atomistic in viewing human nature as primarily greedy, competitive, individualistic, and acquisitive. Hence human relations, whether familial, societal, or governmental were seen as secondary, somewhat superficial, and restrictive of "true" human nature, hence human freedom. Certainly such precepts helped 18th century Europe liberate itself from the restrictive institutions of court, church, and a parochial economy. But to what extent have such Enlightenment precepts become increasingly problematic in the 20th century? Not surprisingly, 19th century intellectuals — Darwin, Marx, Freud, Weber and others — will also reexamine and criticize these assumptions as the next era emerges. We are still debating these assumptions, even with greater intensity, in our own time.

The Enlightenment Philosophical Attack On Christian Reason

The impact of science also made itself felt in formal 18th century philosophy. Philosophers increasingly attempted to examine religious beliefs from a rational perspective. The most impressive Enlightenment philosopher was the great German thinker, Immanuel Kant, 1724-1804. His work, The Critique of Pure Reason (1784). one of the great masterpieces of Western thought was the Enlightenment's most notable philosophical achievement. In this work, he challenged the medieval scholastic tenet that God's existence could be rationally proved. Kant's devastating critique of these arguments— which went back to Aquinas, Anselm, and Aristotle—effectively ended Western philosophers' interest in these points. That is, no major modern philosopher has revisited these arguments after Kant.

1. The Cosmological Argument

Everything that happens has a cause, and this cause in turn has a previous cause, and so on in a regressive series until one reaches a starting point— or first cause, which one can call God.

Another form of this argument is: everything in the world is contingent (i.e. dependent upon something else for its existence.) For example, the existence of this book is contingent upon the prior activities of lumber jacks, paper manufacturers, teacher, computer, printing press etc... These factors in turn are dependent upon other things for their existence. Thus, every object points beyond itself to other things for it to exist, and these other things also depend on previous things for their existence. There has to be an ultimate beginning in order for anything else to exist. We call this ultimate cause, or ultimate beginning — God.

Kant's Critique of the Argument

What basis is there for believing that every cause or every object must have an initial point of beginning? Can one simply believe that there is an infinite series of causes or things in the universe, without any beginning?

12

To put it another way: If God is the ultimate source or cause for all creation, then what or who created God? If one answers that God always was, or that God was self-created, or beyond creation, can't one similarly argue that there simply always was a universe, or that the universe was self-created? What basis is there for arguing that God was self-created, but the universe was not?

Another criticism: Everybody is familiar with the word-trap: "Have you stopped beating your boyfriend (girlfriend)?" The question seems, on the surface, to imply only two answers — yes or no. The joke, of course, lies in the fact that the question may not fit one's situation at all — either one doesn’t have a boyfriend or girlfriend, or that one never (hopefully) beat them at all. In other words, one doesn't want to answer the question in the form it implies, because one feels that the question doesn't fit one's own personal circumstances...

The point is this: Just because our language- in its grammatical structure and vocabulary— gives us the opportunity to ask questions, this does not necessarily imply that all questions are meaningful. Similarly, just because our language gives us the opportunity to ask the question: "How was the universe created?" this does not necessarily imply that this question is a meaningful or sensible question. It may be just as nonsensical as the other question, "Have you stopped beating your boyfriend (or girlfriend)?"

2. The Teleological Argument

Suppose that while walking in a desert place I run across a watch ... A watch consists of a complex arrangement of wheels, cogs, axles, springs and balances— all operating accurately to provide a very sophisticated measurement of time. It would be utterly implausible to assume that the creation of such an interconnected, sophisticated and well functioning machine was the accidental result of natural forces of wind and rain.

Is not the natural world just as complex, well ordered, and beautifully functioning? The rotation of the planets in the solar system, and on earth the regular procession of the seasons, or the mutual interaction and cooperation of the parts of the body— all suggest design and purpose. Look at the human eye — a superb movie camera — with self-adjusting lenses, a high degree of accuracy, color sensitivity, and the capacity to operate continuously for hours. Can such a complex and efficient mechanism have come about solely by changes of accident and mutual adaptation?

All of this seems to give evidence that the universe has a grand design which presupposes the existence of a grand designer — this Grand Designer, one can call God. Eighteenth century rationalists, impressed with the vast orderliness of the universe, dramatically revealed by Newton's great work, put forth this argument more than any other. Such a view was referred to as Deism.

Kant's Critique of the Argument

Yes, the existence of a world necessitates some kind of order, or else nothing could exist at all. But like the Cosmological Argument, does order in the universe imply an orderer? Can the ordered universe be self-ordered? And even if one presupposes for a minute that the order of the universe implies an orderer, why just one orderer? Why not two, or three, or a great

13

number of Gods? If one walks into a nicely cleaned, well ordered house, does the order imply one housekeeper, or more than one?

If one assumes that the beautiful symmetry and order of the universe implies a Creator, fine. But what about the disorder of the planet, the evil one notices that seems to also exist amidst creation. As Bertrand Russell later stated, "I fail to see much beauty or order in a tapeworm, or an earthquake, a virus, or cancer ..."Kant more deeply argued that the concept of" order" is in itself ambiguous, more a matter of cultural bias, or personal taste. More significantly, the concept of order, similar to the concept of causation, is a presupposition which the mind imposes upon reality. But we have no capacity to step outside of our mind to view reality as it "really is." That is, we cannot perceive reality independently of our mind viewing it, therefore we cannot conclude whether it is ordered or not.

3. The Ontological Argument

I have an idea in my mind. But this is not just any idea, but the greatest possible idea that I can possibly conceive — This idea I will call Absolute Perfection of Being.

Instead of defining it as Absolute Perfection of Being, I could define it a second way, I could call my idea: “the idea of which nothing greater can be conceived." For, if I could conceive a new idea greater than my original idea, then, by definition, my new idea would become "an idea of which nothing greater can be conceived."

What would this idea consist of? That is, what qualities would this idea include? Well, it must include all qualities, for if this idea is to be absolutely perfect, if this idea is to be "an idea of which nothing greater can be conceived," than it must include all things, all characteristics.

Would this idea (Absolute Perfection of Being) exist only in my mind, or would this idea exist outside of my mind also? Well, for the idea to exist outside of my mind (i.e. in the real world, independent of my mind thinking it) is a greater idea than if the idea existed only in my mind. Therefore my idea, of which nothing greater can be conceived, must exist in the world apart from my mind thinking it.

I will call this idea, of which "nothing greater can be conceived"—God. And from the above mentioned argument, God therefore exists.

Kant's Critique of the Argument

Whether any specific thing "exists" can only be determined by the test of experience. The words "exists" or "is" are not quality words. That is, not being a characteristic, these words (concepts) cannot therefore be derived from some larger concept. In short, "is" or "exists" are not adjectives, but are verbs. The function of "is" or "exists" is not to add to the content of a concept, but to state that there is an object in the world which answers to the word used with is.

As Bertrand Russell later stated, "To affirm that 'x exists' is to state that there is an object answering to the description 'x.' And to deny that 'x' exists is to deny that there is any such object. The function of "exists" is thus to assert the instantiation of a given concept in the world. "Cows exist" is thus not saying that cows have the attribute or characteristic of exists,

14

but that there are objects, "cows", to which the word "exists" can be applied if in fact cows do appear in the world in some materially definable way.

TIMELINE OF THE AGE OF ENLIGHTEMENT

1689 Locke publishes Letters of Toleration arguing for religious freedom1690 Locke publishes Two Treatises on Civil Government philosophically justifying

the Glorious Revolution, an early political document of the Age of Enlightenment

1697 French Academy publishes first dictionary popularizing its scientific findings

1700 Science Society established in Berlin by Leibniz1726 Jonathan Swift publishes Gulliver’s Travels, a satire on superstitious customs

and human follies1733 Voltaire publishes his Philosophical Letters on the English, popularizing on

the continent English thought, government, and intellectual-religious freedom1735 Linnaeus’ System of Nature published, first modern classification in botany1739 David Hume publishes Treatise on Human Nature1748 Montesquieu publishes his Spirit of the Laws, a work which gives the political

theory of separation of power into judicial, legislative, and executive branches1751 Diderot publishes first volume of the Encyclopedia – a compendium of

scientific knowledge and Enlightenment opinions in reforming society.1754 Condillac publishes Treatise on Sensation1755 Samuel Johnson publishes his English Dictionary1758 Voltaire publishes Candide, a popular work satirizing bigotry, ignorance, and

superstition1759 British Museum opened1761 Franz Joseph Haydn begins thirty year service with the Austrian court1762 Rousseau’s two masterpieces, The Social Contracts and Emile, are published1770 Holbach, a materialist philosopher, publishes his System of Nature1776 Adam Smith publishes Wealth of Nations, the first books that attempts to give

a theoretical explanation of economics, this book becomes the “bible” of capitalismJefferson, Declaration of IndependenceGibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

1779 David Hume publishes Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion1781 Immanuel Kant publishes Critique of Pure Reason, the greatest philosophical

work of the Enlightenment era1784 Beaumarchais publishes Marriage of Figaro (Mozart will quickly turn this

work into a popular opera) a satire on the decadence of the aristocracy1788 Mozart composes last three symphonies1789 Lavoisier’s Elementary Treatise on Chemistry published

American Constitution adopted, United States comes into existence

French Revolution begins…

15