A New Enlightenment is Coming

American Thinker ^ | M.B. Mathews

[RoosterRedux]

Sadly, the science-based, anti-religious Enlightenment does not allow for ethics. Nowhere within can be found the methodology to determine right from wrong. Leaving ethics in individual hands seemed at the time (and still does for the non-religious) a perfectly reasonable thing to do because supposedly within each person lay the seeds of altruism and an innate striving to do what is right and good. But that is not the case. Human beings are too flawed to determine what is right and good without having a baseline in something or someone less flawed. Ethics can answer the question, "Is this effective?" It can never answer the question “Is this good?” God alone knows what is good.

*snip*

God alone provides the New Enlightenment. The contentment in an empty bed, happiness in the face of tragedy, assurance in the face of death cannot be found in a humanist worldview. The wealthy can be poor. The physically well can be sick. The confident can be insecure. Where does one go to alleviate the existential vacuum caused by the old Enlightenment thinking where one's own mind and reason are supposed to suffice but leave so much discontent?

*snip*

The New Enlightenment takes the pre-Enlightenment modus of religion alone, adds the Age of Enlightenment way of reason alone, and combines them to form a rational-spiritual amalgam where faith and reason comfortably blend into a coherent whole where the best of faith and reason provide a totally adequate, rich, and fulfilling worldview.

When people who find that nothing quenches the relentless thirst for recognition, when the thirst for approval and meaning fail, when the thing of the day peters out, there is one place to find real meaning: God.

[livius]

Science may tell us the “how” but Scripture and Revelation tell us the “why” and the what we are to do with the information from science.

However, it begins with the “why” and then goes on to the “how.” Human beings need to know that they are created in the Image and Likeness of God and what their purpose on this earth is before they learn the mechanics.

That said, I doubt that even the Enlightenment philosophers, cynical as they were about governments, ever thought they’d see a day when “science” had been degraded to a set of lies and distortions in the service of the government.

[FarCenter]

Ethics does not depend on religion, at least not on monotheistic religion.

There are eastern ethical systems developed independently. The period of Warring States in China, for example, was a period when much thought was given to ethics, morality, and the organization of society.

Western humanism tends to go wrong in having a too optimistic view of human nature.

[RoosterRedux]

Great comment.

Politics ruins everything it touches...be it race, climate, war, the economy, taxation, government...

[muir_redwoods]

Ethics don’t need a spiritual basis. Recognizing bodily autonomy is a start toward property rights. One owns one’s own body. Given that indisputable ownership right, property rights are axiomatic. A very comprehensive ethical code can be developed from those property rights.

[Qwapisking]

In case you haven’t, noticed, the belief that one owns one’s own body is not indisputable and never in the history of man has been. We have alway been subject to the thinking of the era and the utter depravity of the lowest of human nature. It it indeed unfortunate that those who think higher thoughts, have higher ideas and attempt to reach for higher ideals for mankind are usually the first to be marginalized and/or eliminated. Such is the nature of man and power. “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” comes to mind.

[muir_redwoods]

In case you didn’t notice my comment amounted to that ethics COULD be developed from an acceptance of bodily autonomy.

[ProgressingAmerica]

"The New Enlightenment takes the pre-Enlightenment modus of religion alone, adds the Age of Enlightenment way of reason alone, and combines them to form a rational-spiritual amalgam where faith and reason comfortably blend into a coherent whole where the best of faith and reason provide a totally adequate, rich, and fulfilling worldview."

The Enlightenment itself was also important and worth repeating. This is an area where progressive historians have been exceptionally proficient in manipulating. Let us not forget, during the Age of Enlightenment, Christianity was considered "reasonable".

Progressives lie about everything. The Age of Enlightenment is no different.

[livius]

“Politics ruins everything”…it certainly does. And with modern media, there’s no way to get away from it.