Unsuccessful? Europe is for all practical purposes secular (church attendance in German is 6% of Catholics and 5% for Protestants). Even in America, atheism is on the rise and, ...
Well, of course you are right about that. :) We were using "unsuccessful" in opposite ways. I meant as to their original intended purpose. Many of those philosophers were considered Christians, but fell into the humanistic trap.
Enter the Reformers, particularly John Calvin. Once you have reduced God to naked legalism, it was only a (predictable) step to naked rationalism.
You must be kidding. :) "Rational" is good. "Rationalism" is bad (humanism). The Reformers were NOT humanists. :) Humanists believed in the inner power and elevation of man. That might be a quality of some faiths, but NOT the Reformed.
FK: "But, they insisted that man was autonomous, and THAT is what destroyed their ambitions. ..."
To the contrary, FK. Man believes to this day that we can solve all our problems and unlock of the mysteries through reason, that there is a logical explanation to everything. ...
Perhaps we don't agree on what their ambitions were. I am saying that they were trying to construct a reality which included God, but had man as autonomous. Your post above, which is correct, PROVES that this is impossible. Their ambitions failed because man cannot reconcile with God if man is in control. Therefore, they gave up and went to a "leap of faith" philosophy because reason cannot be used to explain God if man is the boss. You are right that this is the state of the world today, but I consider it a failure of what those Renaissance philosophers originally wanted.
It is the believers who lost the motivation when they [realized?] that diseases are not demonic possessions as the Bible teaches, when thunder turned out to be electrical energy, even something we can harness.
Sure, but they went way too far, thanks in part to the humanist philosophy that has been progressing ever since. Many decided that there is no such thing as demonic possession because the field of mental health was developed. We of course know much better than that. I mean, right? :)
Reason uncovered many a mystery that was attributed to God or to the devil, and discovered that being in the dark we see things differently. Once science shone its light on things we realized the monsters were only in our head.
SOME of the monsters were only in our heads. :) Man tended to replace God with science and that was a huge mistake. God gave science to man, so there was no cause to shut God out because of it. Man came to believe that his intellect was enlightened and superior, so God no longer had a place based on reason. To include God at all, the only place left was to take a leap of faith. Man's self-declared autonomy inevitably led to God and reason not being able to co-exist together. I see that as a tragedy.
... in other words, it was the Church that taught that man is not autonomous. The Reformers did not discover that.
I think it's exactly the opposite. Reformers are criticized because we say that only God is autonomous. We have always said that. The Church, OTOH, recognizes man's autonomy to determine his own destiny, to dispense God's graces, to forgive sins, and to even speak in place of God. Within the Church itself, man has decided that he himself has the power to grant and take away salvation. (Not in an absolute sense, but nevertheless in a very real sense.) All of this happens according to the free will of man. The Church teaches dependence alright, but to a great extent, the dependence is on fellow man
FK, any phenomenon we cannot explain by necessity involves rationalization. To rationalize is to "to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other causes..." so the humanists as well as non-humanists rationalize.
I am saying that they were trying to construct a reality which included God
That is true of all religions, including Christianity.
Their ambitions failed because man cannot reconcile with God if man is in control
We can't even explain the whole of Creation, let alone God. I think the humanists realized that they bit more than they can chew. In reality it makes no difference how much we know; it changes nothing. So what if we know there are 23 heaxtrillion stars in the visible universe? Really, how does that effect our life on earth?
Therefore, they gave up and went to a "leap of faith" philosophy because reason cannot be used to explain God if man is the boss.
I think not FK. They equate God with nature (typical New Age and Shinto beliefs), and none considers man above nature. Man is not capable of changing the Universe. Natural disasters remind us of that all the time.
You are right that this is the state of the world today, but I consider it a failure of what those Renaissance philosophers originally wanted
I agree. They started with an ambitious project to show that man can conquer everything and all, to deify man and humanize God. But, once they realized they failed, they rejected God and became atheists in the last act of defiance, arrogance and pride. It somehow becomes all God's "fault."
Sure, but they went way too far, thanks in part to the humanist philosophy that has been progressing ever since. Many decided that there is no such thing as demonic possession because the field of mental health was developed
Not just mental health, FK. Many "mental" diseases turned out to be of viral, bacterial, congenital and other explainable causes (etiologies); some can even be controlled or even cured. The association of diseases with demons in the Bible is the best example, in my opinion, that the words of the Bible are not God's but human. The revealed truth is God's, but it was packaged in the words and personalities and, most importantly, rationalizations of individual writers and their cocnept of the world, their cultral envornoment and society in general.
Man tended to replace God with science and that was a huge mistake. God gave science to man
I couldn't agree more, FK. Science can't compete with or replace God. Science can only reveal the ineffable nature of God, something that is truly beyond everything.
so there was no cause to shut God out because of it. Man came to believe that his intellect was enlightened and superior, so God no longer had a place based on reason
I disagree. God was no longer necessary for us to combat disease and to understand things like lightening, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, etc. and associate them with God sitting "above." Given that biblical-style miracles simply don't happen, along with de-demonization of diseases and other phenomena, God was simply dropped from being associated as the cause; man realized his own superstition that often make sup a significant part of any religion.
To include God at all, the only place left was to take a leap of faith
That is the prima facie first cause of all religions, FK, not just of humanists.
Man's self-declared autonomy inevitably led to God and reason not being able to co-exist together
God and reason can co-exist, given the necessary "leap of faith." As separate entities. Reason is powerless when it comes to God. That's why humanists failed.
I see that as a tragedy
Human tragedy started with Adam, FK.
Kosta:... in other words, it was the Church that taught that man is not autonomous. The Reformers did not discover that.
I think it's exactly the opposite. Reformers are criticized because we say that only God is autonomous
FK, straight from the Doctrine of the Orthodox Church
The Greek Fathers of the church always implied that the phrase found in the biblical story of the creation of man (Gen. 1:26), according to "the image and likeness of God," meant that man is not an autonomous being and that his ultimate nature is defined by his relation to God, his "prototype."
In paradise Adam and Eve were called to participate in God's life and to find in him the natural growth of their humanity "from glory to glory." To be "in God" is, therefore, the natural state of man.
This doctrine is particularly important in connection with the Fathers' view of human freedom. For theologians such as Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) and Maximus the Confessor (7th century) man is truly free only when he is in communion with God; otherwise he is only a slave to his body or to "the world," over which, originally and by God's command, he was destined to rule.
Sorry, FK, the Orthodox were way ahead of the Reformers in that regard. They didn't need to re-invent the wheel. :)
The Church, OTOH, recognizes man's autonomy to determine his own destiny
No, FK, that is not what we believe. From the Orthodox Catechism (please, please read the whole thing, not just the excerpt below):
Faith is the path on which an encounter takes place between us and God. It is God who takes the first step: He fully and unconditionally believes in us and gives us a sign, an awareness of His presence. We hear the mysterious call of God, and our first step towards an encounter with Him is a response to this call. God may call us openly or in secret, overtly or covertly. But it is difficult for us to believe in Him if we do not first heed this call