Enlightenment (part 3)

     There were many prominent and gifted Enlightenment thinkers and authors. This is not the place to scrutinize them all; rather, I will briefly examine one representative from the beginning, one from the middle, and one from the end of this frantic time of philosophical thought and discourse. 

THE ENLIGHTENMENT                                             (A BIRD’S EYE VIEW)
Leading Up to the Enlightenment	Within the Enlightenment		Emerging Out of the Enlightenment
THREE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS	THREE MONUMENTAL CHARACTERS
Reformation Wars Scientific Revolution	Rene Descartes David Hume Immanuel Kant

Figure 3 – Enlightenment/Three Monumental Characters

Rene Descartes – “I think therefore I am”

            Our earliest Enlightenment writer is Rene Descartes, a French philosopher/ mathematician, who has the distinction of being called the father of modern philosophy. Chances are, if you have studied philosophy at a major university, you have read (or, at least, heard of) Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy.

            Descartes is responsible for laying the foundation for rationalism, which can be defined as a theory of knowledge (epistemology) that “believes some ideas or concepts are independent of experience and that some truth is known by reason alone” (Hunnex, Chronological and Thematic Charts of Philosophies and Philosophers, 1986). Descartes’ works are considered the embryonic move of the era away from God’s revelation as the mainstay of man accesses to knowledge and toward man’s reason being the foremost means to that end. Needless to say, not all clergy have been overjoyed with Descartes and his work.

Archbishop William Temple once remarked that the most disastrous moment in European history was perhaps the bitterly cold day in the winter of 1619-1620 when French philosopher Rene Descartes began his journey toward rationalism...what Descartes did on that day began a trend that has not been reversed. (Dowley, 1995)

            Descartes is especially well known for two items: His quote “I think therefore I am;” and his Cartesian method of inquiry. As to the quote, I have heard it quoted on no small number of occasions – although I suspect it is too often used by too many of us who have to little knowledge of what it actually means. What Descartes had in mind was 

the mere fact I am thinking, regardless of whether or not what I am thinking is true or false, implies that there must be something engaged in that activity, namely an “I.” Hence, “I exist” is an indubitable and, therefore, absolutely certain belief that serves as an axiom from which other, absolutely certain truths can be deduced (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Rene Descartes).

            Descartes’ Cartesian method of inquiry consists of four guidelines to move from opinion to science: a) Never accept anything as true unless it is clearly and inescapably so; b) Analyze or reduce a problem to resolvable parts; c) Organize particulars into general knowledge; and d) Check for completeness and negative cases (Hunnex, 41).

            Although not a new concept, Descartes also set out to demonstrate in a quite systematic manner the concept of mind/body dualism. This was at the heart of his “I think therefore I am” quote. Not new to philosophy or religion, Descartes’ systematic analysis of this dualism was ready fuel for the dichotomy between faith and reason that was to gain great traction as this time period advanced. 

            Indeed, Descartes set the stage nicely regarding the place of rationalism and dualism for his like-minded, European mainland, enlightened brothers to follow.[1]

David Hume “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions”

            David Hume sat on the opposite side of the fence and the opposite side of the English Channel from Descartes. Descartes was a French rationalist; Hume a British empiricist.[2] As a dyed-in-the-wool empiricist, Hume believed that, “all ideas or concepts derive from experience and that truth must be established by reference to experience alone” (Hunnex). His famous quote, “Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions,” was no oblique assault on Descartes’ premise. Whereas Descartes zeroed in on reason, intellect, and our ability to think as the pathway to knowledge; Hume saw desire, emotion, and our ability to feel as the key.

            In Hume’s world, ethics were based on a person’s feelings and not on some culturally derived, abstract moral principle; neither on some theologically contrived, absolute moral Creator. He writes, “Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason” (Hume, Treatise, 325).  And for Hume, it was the individual who sat as final judge regarding these “rules of morality.” His high view of free will granted individuals the right (and, indeed, the obligation) to act according to their desires and feelings with impunity and without input from the various social-cultural institutions such as religion and politics. 

            A number of other British thinkers of the era fell into the empiricism camp – among the better known are George Berkeley and John Locke. Locke became known as the father of modern liberalism. (Notice how so many of these men of the Enlightenment period ended up becoming known as the father of something ­– another testimony to the transhistorical influence of that era.) But it was Hume who was the primary harbinger in this realm of empiricism. He challenged the very basis of the (then) modern scientific methodology, arguing that just because something has always happened a certain way does not guarantee that it will always happen in that same manner. Thus epistemology and causality were turned on their heads. As was reason.

Immanuel Kant – “Thus, I had to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith”

            By the time Immanuel Kant came along, the Enlightenment had been around long enough for most European intellectuals to realize they were in a bit of a pickle. 

The Enlightenment commitment to the sovereignty of reason was tied to the expectation that it would...support certain key beliefs that tradition had always sanctioned. Crucially, these included belief in God, the soul, freedom, and the compatibility of science with morality and religion. Although a few intellectuals rejected some or all of these beliefs, the general spirit of the Enlightenment was not so radical. The Enlightenment was about replacing traditional authorities with the authority of individual human reason, but it was not about overturning traditional moral and religious beliefs.[3]

            The crisis (alias, pickle) was the fact “that the modern science and reason of the Enlightenment appeared to undermine the traditional moral and religious beliefs that free rational thought was expected to support.”[4] It was an inevitable intellectual crisis. It was the conundrum of (on the one hand) replacing traditional authorities with the authority of individual human reason while (on the other hand) not overturning traditional moral and religious beliefs.

            This is where Immanuel Kant enters the picture. Until quite late in his career Kant was a dyed-in-the-wool rationalist. Then he read Hume. And that got him to thinking (something Kant was not allergic to). With a newly formed, Hume-induced paradigm shift Kant set out to harmonize the opposing theories of rationalism and empiricism (Weeks, Philosophy in Minutes, p. 260).

            Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason was his response. He wrote it in 1781 – at the windup of the Enlightenment. In fact, it may well have been his writing that brought the era to a close. He wrote this particular volume after he had evolved considerably in his thinking regarding the concept of reason.[5]

            Critique of Pure Reason is not an easy read, to say the least.[6] However, to this day, it remains one of the most widely known, studied, and influential works in modern philosophy.[7] In this, his magnum opus, Kant’s goal was to determine where we “draw the line;” that is, where is the line between what we can know by way of reason and that which we can know only by way of experience.  

            With Descartes being a rationalist and Hume an empiricist, Kant, in attempting to bring these two concepts (and men) together[8], ended up an idealist – more specifically a transcendental idealist. In Kant’s model there are two worlds: 1) the phenomenon world, which is the world as we conceive of and experience it, the world as it appears to our minds; and 2) the noumenon world, which is the world as it really is (true reality). This former world being science and reason based. We can apprehend it; we can understand it; and we can test it. The latter world is transcendental. It is beyond us; beyond our experience, apprehension, and understanding. For those with a religious bent, Kant felt their belief in God, spirits, heaven, and hell may be beneficial simply because it helps such people cope with the challenges of life at a psychological level.

            One thing for sure, when it comes to the Enlightenment, one certainly can’t count Kant’s critique inconsequential.

---

[1] Philosophers prior to Descartes who held to rationalism as a value would include Aristotle, Plato, and Aquinas. The latter attempted to bring together Greek rationalism and Christian revelation. Those who, in the ensuing Enlightenment era, followed Descartes in adopting rationalism include Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Leibniz, and Immanuel Kant.

[2] This was the general pattern of Enlightenment thought in relation to geography – the rationalists, for the most part, being from the European mainland while the empiricists generally hailed from Britain. There are exceptions; for instance, Francis Bacon who developed the inductive method of reasoning and Isaac Newton (another Englishman) who formulated the laws of gravity and motion.

[3] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Immanuel Kant, May 2010

[4] Ibid.

[5] Kant’s initial Inaugural Dissertation stated that moral judgments are based on pure understanding alone. By the time he wrote The Critique of Pure Reason, he had modified that view substantially.

[6] In fact it was so difficult to read and comprehend that the early reviews of it were very few and uncomprehending (in Kant’s opinion) that Kant wrote a shorter and more accessible version entitled, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will Be Able to Come Forward as a Science (1783).

[7] Kant did attempt to condense and make his book more accessible by writing a somewhat simpler version, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, two years later.

[8] It must be noted that neither rationalism nor empiricism disregards the other school entirely. As Hunnex informs us, “the issue revolves on beliefs about 1) necessary knowledge and 2) empirical knowledge.” Wrapped up in that statement is the central issue of whether one can have genuine knowledge of the world without relying on experience.

The Enlightenment (part 2)

     Before jumping into the finer details of this long century, a few general comments. The Enlightenment “became a general descriptor identifying the eighteenth century as a progressive social epoch, promoting secular intellectual freedom and representative government against the forces of tradition.” (Vanhoozer, ed., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, Sandberg, 2005). This was the “century of philosophy par excellence. It was a period that sought to overturn every intellectual assumption, every dogma, every prejudice (a favorite term) that had previously exercised any hold over the minds of men.” (Pagden, The Enlightenment and Why It Still Matters, 2013, p. 11). One thing quickly becomes clear when studying the Enlightenment, it is not an easy time period or concept to get one’s head around. It was one-hundred-plus years of voluminous, complicated, philosophic, theological, revolutionary, and often contradictory thought. “Not all the ideas were new, but the volume was.” (Stearns, 2014)

THREE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS[1]

            Now we are ready to begin our journey into “the finer details of this long century” by briefly surveying three major historical contexts that led Europe into these tumultuous times.           

THE ENLIGHTENMENT                                             (A BIRD’S EYE VIEW)
Leading Up to the Enlightenment	Within the Enlightenment	Emerging Out of the Enlightenment
THREE HISTORICAL CONTEXTS
Reformation Wars Scientific Revolution

Figure 2 – Enlightenment/Three Historical Contexts

Reformation and the Nature of Man (The Pendulum Swings)

            On a world history chart, the Enlightenment comes immediately on the heels of the Reformation. And one of the major tenets of the Reformation was the fact of man’s fall and the resulting sentence and seriousness of the depravity inflicted on all mankind. It should come as no surprise that the human audience does not commonly receive this particular doctrine with applause. It often leaves an unpleasant aftertaste. Quite the opposite, as a general rule humans tend to see themselves in a rather positive light. Our first context issue is that the pendulum was, at the beginning of this era, beginning to swing the traditional Reformational view of man’s depravity to a much more positive assessment of the nature of man. As the Enlightenment proceeded, it

stressed the overall goodness of people. While acknowledging that people could act wickedly, old views concerning original sin and the depravity of man were replaced with an optimistic perspective concerning the nature of man. Man could overcome evil on his own effort through reason and education. (Michael Vlach, Enlightenment, Theologicalstudies.org)

            This first historical context is one in which a particular doctrine of the Church concerning man, which had filtered to a significant degree into society at large, was on the wane. There are, a number of reasons for the decline. One of them is our next historical context.

War and the Power of the Church (Beware the Man of Cloth)

            Immediately prior to the Enlightenment (early to mid 1600’s) marked a time of considerable upheaval both on the European mainland and in Britain. On the mainland the Thirty Years War raged. In Britain the English Civil War was on. These were not minor skirmishes. The Thirty Years War, fought mainly on what is now German soil, saw over seven million people killed. Many people were put on the rack, burned at the stake, and tortured for their faith. Across the channel it is estimated that 100,000 died from war-related disease while 85,000 died in battle. Add to this war motif the fact that both Catholics and Protestants were hardly uninvolved in the conflicts and not always the bastions of good will, charity, and humility. The wars on both sides of the Channel were fueled by the ongoing Catholic/Protestant disagreement. As De Jong writes,

For some decades before 1650, much of Europe had been embroiled in warfare. The nations were fighting for the control of Europe – and of world-wide commerce. The powerful Habsburg rulers of Austria and Spain, usually backed by the pope, had been pitted against the kings and princesses of north-west Europe, most of whom were Protestants.

           

            Abuse of power by civil as well as church leaders was rampant during this time. By the mid 1600’s it was evident that much of the population was beginning to look upon organized religion with less than blind approval and allegiance. The Church was losing its grip on large segments of society. While this was true, and certainly “too much intensity in religious life was discouraged, even by the clergy...None of this meant that Christianity had lost its role as a cultural and intellectual force during this period, even if its place in society was changing...in many countries reform movements pushed toward a deeper experience of Christian faith” (Sunshine, 2009, p. 144-149).

Science and the Order of the Universe (The Stars Align – Finally)

            In the years immediately prior to the Enlightenment there were more than political and religious upheavals. Alongside the political and religious fallout from the Reformation, a scientific revolution was in full tilt.[2]

            Let us begin with the Copernican Revolution. In the middle of the 1500’s, Nicholas Copernicus published his De revolutionibus. In this work Copernicus claimed the solar system revolved around the sun rather than the earth. This was revolutionary. We might be left to wonder, “So what? What does this have to do with anything outside the realm of astronomy and the dusty, mothball-smelling halls of some higher institution of learning?” Why is this “obscure and recondite minutiae of astronomical research instrumental in proclaiming an epochal turning point in the intellectual development of man?” Kuhn provided the answer:

Copernicus lived and worked during a period when rapid changes in political, economic, and intellectual life were preparing the bases of modern European and American civilization. His planetary theory and his associated conception of a sun-centered universe were instrumental in the transition from medieval to modern Western society, because they seemed to affect man’s relation to the universe and to God...the Copernican theory became one focus for the tremendous controversies n religion, in philosophy, and in social theory...Men who believed that their terrestrial home was only a planet circulating blindly about one of an infinity of stars evaluated their place in the cosmic scheme quite differently than had their predecessors who saw the earth as the unique and focal center of God’s creation. [Thomas S. Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957) 2.]

            The musty-smelling intellectual planetary mathematics, takes on a whole new perspective. And then along came Michelangelo’s brother, Galileo, who

has always played a key role in any history of science and, in many histories of philosophy; he is a, if not the, central figure of the scientific revolution of the 17th Century. His work in physics or natural philosophy, astronomy, and the methodology of science still evoke debate after over 360 years. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

            In 1609, Galileo built his first telescope. After a year of observing the moon and planets, he published his Siderius nuncius or Starry Messenger.[3] Once again, in Copernican fashion, one of the great moments in the history of science (and beyond) was at play. And once again, the centrality of the earth was challenged. Galileo demonstrated through his telescopic observations what Copernicus theorized with his mathematics. For his work, Galileo has been labeled the father of modern science. Also for his work, he was jailed. Since the Copernican/Galilian findings were at odds with doctrines the Roman Catholic Church, Galileo was eventually tried by the Church, found guilty, and spent the last years of his life under house arrest. In place of looking through a telescope he was hardly allowed the license of looking out a window.

     The scientific revolution that began under the watch of Copernicus and Galileo was a crucial lead-up to the Enlightenment. It set the stage for the forthcoming hefty emphasis on science.

---

[1] Shelley lists these three “roots of the Enlightenment” with almost no comment. Bruce Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995) 313.

[2] For further information regarding the relationship between the scientific revolution and religion, see, Tim Dowley, Introduction to the History of Christianity, James R. Moore “The Rise of Modern Science” (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) 48 –50.

[3] For an excellent biography of Galileo, see John L Heibron, Galileo (Oxford: Oxford Press, 2010).

The Enlightenment & How We Westerners Interpret (part 1)

     In his book, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity, Mark Noll examines twelve critical turning points in the story of Christianity.[1] He sees considerable merit in providing a framework for understanding the story of Christianity built around key historical events. Taking a cue from Noll, I will examine, not a definitive number of critical events in the history of hermeneutical bias, but rather survey one particularly influential turning point, a turning point that took up more than a century of western history’s time and continues to this day to have enormous tacit influence on how the western world interprets everything.[2]

     “The Enlightenment” is a metaphor. Defenders of this historical phenomenon used “the metaphor of spreading the light to refer to the kind of intellectual and cultural progress...but the phrase ‘the Enlightenment’ itself was not adopted until the nineteenth century, when it began to be used in retrospect of a period as a whole” (Brown, Routledge History of Philosophy, British Philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment, Kindle Edition, 2003).

     The Enlightenment is sometimes referred to as “the long century,” and long it was; it ran from the mid 1600’s to the late 1700’s[3]. Concerning these one-hundred-plus-years, Pagden (2013) tells us, “There are many ideological divisions within the modern world. One of the most persistent, most troubling, and increasingly most divisive, however, is the struggle over the legacy of the Enlightenment” (p, ix). It is my contention (and therefore my goal to demonstrate) that one of the Enlightenment’s most prominent and lasting legacies has been its effect on how we, in the Western world, interpret reality.

            In order to discover this hermeneutical heritage, we will take a brief survey of the Enlightenment era. Our purpose here is not to rehearse in detail the entire history of all those hundred-plus years; others have done that adequately.[4] Rather, the goal is to garner a “bird’s eye view” (get a big picture) of the Enlightenment – to be able to have in mind a clear and memorable map of this critical time period. To accomplish this we will examine major events that led up to the Enlightenment, examine principle actors and concepts within this time period, and finally land on the hermeneutical legacy of the Enlightenment. 

            To help us grasp this bird’s eye view of the Enlightenment, we will progressively build a chart to succinctly depict major aspects of this time period. Here is figure 1 of that chart.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT                                             (A BIRD’S EYE VIEW)
Leading Up to the Enlightenment	Within the Enlightenment	Emerging Out of the Enlightenment

Figure 1  – A Bird’s Eye View of the Enlightenment

[1] Noll purposefully uses the terminology the history of Christianity as opposed to Church history because he believes the latter “entails a stronger commitment to a particular expression of faith.” Mark A. Noll, Turning Points: Decisive Moments in the History of Christianity (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000) 20.

[2] While some view this whole time period (mid 1600’s to late 1700’s) as the Enlightenment period, others see the 1600’s as the Age of Reason and the 1700’s as the Enlightenment.

[3] For examples of Enlightenment history see, Roy Porter, The Enlightenment: Studies in European History (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001) and Dorinda Outram, The Enlightenment: New Approaches to European History (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2013).