This is all quite cogent, William. Yes, the people you lambast are shallow and uninformed. But I’m not sure that reason can lead to faith; it is more likely the other way round. I don’t think we can ultimately know why we believe what we believe and perhaps we should just accept that. It might help make pluralists out of us, in the spirit of, say, Isiah Berlin.
That's a very thoughtful comment, Michalis, thank you. I think that Christianity is consonant with reason but I don't think that reason alone can turn an atheist into a believer.
I am with you. Sometimes I wonder how much we really "decide" these things. People differ in what they find convincing, and what they feel needs explaining. I don't want to dismiss reasons or arguments entirely, but I think the religious scholars of the past 30 or so years are right to emphasise that how people experience God (or don't) is much more important than any syllogism that could be given for or against his existence. I was an atheist for about 10 years or so, and I often tell people that my way back to Christianity was through J.S. Bach.
good one: Bach is one of the masters of harmony and we can probably all agree that harmony might be one of the most important cornerstones, or building blocks of our existence. meanwhile an important part of The Enlightenment in Europe had to do with a growing sense of- or need for personal choice and responsibility. to put it bluntly: one doesn't need God to act or to do good (or evil). another part of 15th century social change had to do with critisizing the wide-spread corruption of many, often local religious leaders and the dubious worldly wealth of the Church (and ultimately the Vatican).
indeed. perhaps what we tend to see as The Enlightenment should rather be seen as closely intertwined processes going back and forth over and involving various regions, ranging from Italy to Germany to the Low Countries, England (and back again). I son't think it was one wave of change, but several over time.
Absolutely right. Historians today tend to emphasise that historical periods (which are almost completely arbitrary) are rarely discreet and overlap significantly.
This is all quite cogent, William. Yes, the people you lambast are shallow and uninformed. But I’m not sure that reason can lead to faith; it is more likely the other way round. I don’t think we can ultimately know why we believe what we believe and perhaps we should just accept that. It might help make pluralists out of us, in the spirit of, say, Isiah Berlin.
That's a very thoughtful comment, Michalis, thank you. I think that Christianity is consonant with reason but I don't think that reason alone can turn an atheist into a believer.
I am with you. Sometimes I wonder how much we really "decide" these things. People differ in what they find convincing, and what they feel needs explaining. I don't want to dismiss reasons or arguments entirely, but I think the religious scholars of the past 30 or so years are right to emphasise that how people experience God (or don't) is much more important than any syllogism that could be given for or against his existence. I was an atheist for about 10 years or so, and I often tell people that my way back to Christianity was through J.S. Bach.
good one: Bach is one of the masters of harmony and we can probably all agree that harmony might be one of the most important cornerstones, or building blocks of our existence. meanwhile an important part of The Enlightenment in Europe had to do with a growing sense of- or need for personal choice and responsibility. to put it bluntly: one doesn't need God to act or to do good (or evil). another part of 15th century social change had to do with critisizing the wide-spread corruption of many, often local religious leaders and the dubious worldly wealth of the Church (and ultimately the Vatican).
You raise some great points, though you could say that those social changes began even earlier, with the "Reformation" of the twelfth century.
indeed. perhaps what we tend to see as The Enlightenment should rather be seen as closely intertwined processes going back and forth over and involving various regions, ranging from Italy to Germany to the Low Countries, England (and back again). I son't think it was one wave of change, but several over time.
Absolutely right. Historians today tend to emphasise that historical periods (which are almost completely arbitrary) are rarely discreet and overlap significantly.