Ushering In An Age of Reason....Or Not.....?

When we look at the Age of Enlightenment we do not see a wholesale abandonment of the old superstitions by the populations of the world. What we see is progress in wrenching governments, if not all of society, away from the cluches of religious zeal and toward the concepts of scular governance. It did not involve all governments everywhere and, to this day, there are notable and wide spread throw-backs. However, we recognize that during that period in world history there was a major shift in philosophy on a large scale in many governments.The GNU Atheist movement is taking the next step in extending this secularist movement deeper into society. Since Abington v Schempp, Murray v Curlett (1963) the movement of secular rationality and reason into the greater society, via the secular restrictions on government, in the USA has progressed far and wide. While there has appreared to be a rise in religious fundamentalism in the USA I submit this is an illusion made by technology and instant mass media. The fundamentalists have always been there just now more openly seen. The greater change is that secular humanism and atheism are not just also more open but are now tolerated, accepted and even encouraged in some segments of our society. The point is emphasised by the fact that those openly acknowledging themselves as "Non-religious/secular, atheist, humanist" have grown considerably over the later part of the 20th century. SourceExtending this to the world as a whole we will not see nor should we expect to see a wholesale abandonment of the old superstitions in our societies. While the movement toward secular rationality and reason in the greater world society may never become a 100% success the movement is now underway and making significant progress today.I submit that the new Age of Reason has already begun. We are living in the midsts of it now.Future historians will look to this period and our "four horsemen" as we look to the mid 1600's with Spinoza, Locke and Newton, as the new Age of Reason in full swing.The first one lasted 150 years and fundamentally altered human existance even if it do not reach everyone everywhere. I see no reason to not expect the same from this one.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

My opinion. We understand quite well the major Abrahamic religions after centuries of experience with them. They are intolerant and violent due to their scriptural requirement to spread to and convert non-adherents. Further we have seen and experienced widespread as an evil article of their faith that non-adherents are not just different but are fused with the devil and need to be converted or killed.Christianity appears to be the one in most danger here since this new Age of Reason is mostly happening in societies where it is the major religion. If christianity does not want to be sidelined into a painful memory for the future to ignore then the doctrine that all others are evil instruments of satan has to be abandoned and replaced with the doctrine that all people are not just free but bound to follow their own conscience. Proselytisation will need to be abandoned.I do not see this happening. The only recourse society has is to get rid of the evil by attriting its adherents to insignificance.

Au contraire. The view that knowledge and reason were superior to the church and state, sparked The Enlightenment some 400 years ago and culminated in the rise of secular governance and curbed the abuses of the church. It has been done before.This new Age of Reason is specifically anti-theist, anti-faith, and is built on the view that empirical evidence is king over the unevidenced dogma of the ancient creeds and the new age cults. And this is not something that is going to come about. This Age of Reason is in full swing now. We are living in its midst.Look at the quotes you gave, GDR. See how each based their views on the empirical evidence and accumulated knowledge before them and not on the stated dogma of some church or on some unevidenced faith.We still have a great lack of knowledge, mysteries that surround us and questions of our place in the scheme of things. This will never end. But the forced superstitious answers of blind faith will fade to insignificance as this new Age of Reason spreads.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

No, GDR. If you read Susskind you would know he is speculating on limits to human knowledge not by scientific means but by any means whatsoever, period.And if you read more Penrose you would see his speculated purpose of a kind is firmly in the mystery of nature and not some spiritual purpose as in a planned meaning for existance.And Wheeler's "consciousness is fundamental" is firmly based in QFT and, as he himself says, if the question is to be resolved it will be within QFT or its mathematical decendents, not some spiritually laden faith. The operative part here is "intellegent" people. Different views are not just welcome but necessary, though there is a limit. The restriction is on those who would set policy based not upon the best available evidence but upon their personal revelation by some bronze-aged texts, the configuration of the stars in the heavens or the bloody entrails of a sacrificial goat.Edited by AZPaul3, : reword

I can just hear Dr. S: Of course I do not consider superstition. Don't be silly. In 3000 years it has yielded us nothing. Why would anyone think it could yield something of value now? So. We do not know everything. Yet. Are you surprised?What we do know, however, is that the answers on faith have given us nothing except some personal comfort and quite a few wars.Religion does not have a stellar track record for finding things out. Quite dismal in fact. Please keep in mind that regardless of how brilliant these folk happen to be, they are putting forth personal speculations and will probably be found wrong. And indeed there are theists who are scientists and rely on empirical evidence in cosmology, medicine, biology, geology, etc. One has to wonder why they cannot seem to apply this same intellectual discipline to that other aspect in their lives. It might be because, when set so young and without choice, the fangs of faith run deep in the psyche and can never be exorcised. I know, I know. You use lambs now. With a set up like that I just couldn't help it, Sorry.Edited by AZPaul3, : reword.

Not only that, when you look at the facts of history, he is correct. But you disagree that religion's answers from faith have given us nothing, which is also to be expected. But this is getting off topic. Maybe some other time. Correct indeed. The new Age of Reason, like science itself, seeks to cut away the useless fat of faith, which has so many contradictory answers all based on individual emotion, and leave the facts for dispassionate Reason to consider. Except, now, instead of just within a school of science, Reason will flourish in society and government. We will make choices based on what the evidence says not on what some chosen priest says. No, GDR. Read more of their work. They are putting forth speculations, not conclusions, and they admit and say so. But they have evidence and reason to propose their speculations, just not enough to draw any hard conclusions.This cuts to the need for an Age of Reason. Religious speculations are treated by the priest and his adherents as hard conclusions with the added stricture that thou shalt not question. Basing long term policy decisions on such shaky ground is dangerous as history already attests. Humanity cannot run a global village on such faulty intellect. Again this is a bit off-topic. But, those early fangs run very deep. I suspect both have always, deep in their hearts, held the scars of faith from early acculturation.I would wager that if you look within yourself you will see where and how those fangs were set early leaving you little choice at this point but to believe.Why are you christian instead of moslem? Because the fangs were christian fangs. If you had been raised in Tehran the fangs would have been slightly different. Still the fangs got you. It is just an accident of geography what flavor fang got to you first. Peace be upon you Imam GDR. Excellent. And with a corn meal coating, a little saffron and a good helping of cayenne ... I don't deep fry but pan fry ... in butter.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : reword, reorderEdited by AZPaul3, : now its spellin. This is never going to end.

No problem, my man. I'll lurk for the duration.

I think you might be struggling with an idealization of an Age of Reason and not the more practical realization. You are most certainly correct that humans are not, apparently by nature, the most rational of creatures. But this Age of Reason is not intended, IMO, to reverse this but to compensate for this known trait when making decisions especially in government and social policy.Again by comparison, the Age of Enlightenment curbed the absolute power of the church and the monarchy. It did not do away with either but greatly lessened their power to dictate policy in all spheres. Other voices, other ideas, gained a greater influence in government and in society. And this change had a significant effect on humanity around the world. Not total absolute change but enough that we today look back on those times as having an enormous affect on humanity's path into the future.The new Age of Reason has begun. It will not in the next 150 years supplant all irrational thoughts and practices in government and society. It most certainly will not magically make all humans rational logical thinkers. But it will lessen these effects as other more rational voices are given room and rise to be heard.Frankly, I think this new Age of Reason is inevitable. If we do not kill or poison ourselves first, this now, this today, is the time future historians will look upon as another great era for the significant change in humanity's path that is being taken.

Most certainly. Individual superstition leads to organized superstition and organized superstition leads to illogical, irrational and down right evil policy in our emerging global village.Let's take one of the most glaring examples of superstitious evil playing out now in our world today: the African HIV/AIDS crisis.Due to some superstitious faith that contraception is against the will of their god the church opposes the use of condoms. As a consequence, literally millions of people needlessly expose themselves to HIV infection. Thousands of people die every day from AIDS that could have been prevented. The empirical evidence is very strong. The spread of HIV could be greatly curtailed by the use of simple, cheap, readily available latex tubes.But instead of looking at the facts to make a better life for the people the organized superstition that is the church bowed to its irrational, illogical faith. The result, of course, is that every year more than a million people end their suffering-shortened lives in a months-long painful death. The church not only helped establish but continues to maintain a hell on earth. All for the sake of its superstition.This is the evil of superstition forsaking reason that is being writ large on all humanity.The reason this happened so strikingly in Africa is because the superstitious church holds great power on the continent. This is the power, this is the abuse of power by the church, that humanity in an Age of Reason needs to destroy. Then you are not looking.

No, GDR, just sidelining such irrational beliefs that in the normal discourse of policy formation such beliefs do not have any effect. Not criminalizing but ignoring. Like the opinions of a child toward their vegetables.A world where no such superstitious beliefs existed is but a pipe dream since we are dealing with humans here. It is a very pleasant dream indeed but a dream none the less. The facts of history show that after millennia of experience with family, tribe, city, state and nation the relative moralism in these disparate societies converged on common themes. This experience shows that societies small and large benefit from conforming to these common themes. This in no way speaks to the existence of an "absolute morality" outside the human experience imposed from above. Just the convergence of moral themes based on our long history of trying to live together without the constant fear of being eaten by our neighbor.

The difference here is not one of personal point of view or world view nor even interpretation of subjective thoughts. It is one of a difference in the acceptance of empirical facts.Religion is superstition as a matter of practice and definition and superstition is irrational and illogical as a matter of practice and definition.And while I am not want to belittle human intelligence, it is, again based upon the preponderance of the evidence, nothing more than another evolved trait like the blood clot cascade and the Krebs cycle. Your own superstitious-based incredulity blinds you to the empirical facts.Our feelings and beliefs mean nothing when the evidence is there pointing directly to the issue. One can disagree all they want, and you are certainly entitled to do so, but this will not negate the fact that religion/superstition/irrational are forever interconnected.We could now get into the whole dueling dictionaries and "what is evidence" mess again, but the facts will not change and, I suspect, neither will your view.Though I still hold out hope that maybe we can turn you to the dark side someday.I know, I know, when I fall on my knees and beg the forgiveness of VishnuIsisAllahUnicorn then you will become a Dawkins level 6.7 Athiest. Gotta keep the universe in balance ya know.Edited by AZPaul3, : spelinns.

Ooo, such an open field. It depends on the subject.Human intelligence. Afterlife. Gods. Subjective evidence/conclusions. Religion as superstition. Earth "made" for us. The "basis" of natural laws. Absolute morality. The usual culprits of the superstitiously-inclined mind.And yet you are so logical and concise in your analysis of OT v NT, the old god v the new Jesus, finding disconnects in the various sects, what scripture means and doesn't mean, etc. You have the intellectual skills. You also have blind spots where your intellect conflicts with your religious heart.In your many exchanges with that Straggler character I kept seeing where you insisted on not looking where the facts were leading, or fearing where they were leading, opting instead for a "subjective" conclusion down a side road more in keeping with your religious heart's desires. You have the skills, now you need the discipline.It's not easy being an atheist, having to make your own decisions on morality, right/wrong, good/bad, searching your own character for what kind of man you want to be, what kind of world you want to leave for your children, not being lead by the nose by some priest. But it is very gratifying to know that what is good and what is evil is within me, not forced from on high, and I have the knowledge and strength of character to recognize which is which without the insistence of a priest and that I decide. That I have the knowledge and the power and the means within me alone to be human with all that this entails expecting tolerance from others for my differences and tolerating, indeed rejoicing, the differences of others.And the monthly dues are, well, somewhat reasonable, at least in the Phoenix area, the rituals are not all that physically taxing and, given the right mix of sauces and vegetables, the annual baby-eating can be quite filling.All you have to do to join is defer to your head. Leave your heart to advise when there is not sufficient evidence, but not to rule in all things as you do now.Having been brainwashed into a specific superstitious cult I understand it would not be easy for you to break the chains that imprison your good mind, GDR. But do try. We could get you into one of the apprentice programs? Start off as a Dawkins Level 3 and work your way up?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I did say it depends on the subject, didn't I. Meaning the specific facts you deny depend on the subject to which those facts apply.But if you want me to just chose one then I will opt for a most controversial treatment and open up a hornets' nest.What fun!All the facts we possess about supernatural entities, from the gods of the Greek pantheon, volcano gods, Santa, Tinkerbell, witches, ghosts, goblins, unicorns (pink), Persian gods, Egyptian gods, Assyrian gods, African, Native American, Australian, all we have in the way of evidence on these supernatural things shows that they are all false and made up. That's thousands of data points right there. We have additional evidence that humans are psychologically prone to create from nothing but imagination various and sundry supernatural things. And we have found one area in the brain that appears to be the seat of religious euphoria and we can flip it on and off like a light switch.There is no evidence, none, zero, showing anything other than that supernatural stuff is made up by us clever and creative humans with a touch of euphoria for spice.You're already familiar with the evidence here. I won't continue.When such a heavy weight of evidence points all in the one direction there can logically be only the one path to follow to a conclusion.Now here is the controversial part. You cleverly never stated outright that you were denying the individual evidences presented. Instead you devised a subjective conclusion that lead off the inevitable path onto one more agreeable to your religious irrationalities.I submit, GDR, that by denying the inevitable logical path that all the empirical evidence points in, you have de facto denied all the empirical evidence. First, you should be proud. You're a good guy.Second, I couldn't be more overt than I was. I came right out and stated so flatly, in living color. You are a religionist, therefor you were brainwashed. It doesn't matter that you evolved your present beliefs by some circuitous route. That fang of faith, the psychological need for a sky daddy with a really big stick to watch over you, was set very early and all you have done is read, explore and experiment different ways of satisfying the fangs needs. It's got you, GDR, and it doesn't want to ever let you go. No, I did not know that. It's so hard to tell with religionists. If you have any empirical evidence of this, maybe I'll try my hand at some subjective conclusions of my own to deny it. No, it's just me. This is one of the reasons I'm not the poster child for the new Age of Reason. That and the beard, of course.Edited by AZPaul3, : the usual culprits