A Deist wrote this?

[orogenicman]

I've been reading (actually, re-reading) several books on the enlightenment recently. Particularly "Science and the Enlightenment, by Thomas L. Lankins, and The Revolution in Science 1500-1750, by A Rupert Hall. Hall notes on page 24:

"Protestantism is totally irrelevant to the initiation of the scientific revolution. The influence it had on the character of seventeenth-century science is another matter. But no historian has failed to see an essential continuity from Vesalius to Harvey, from Copernicus to Kepler, from Galileo to Netwon, bridging firmly over any stretch of time in which the new protestant spirit might be supposed to infiltrate. Those historicans who wish to write any kind of generic account of the scientific revoluton (or of the enlightenment), or to trace its evolution from small beginnings through successive accretions and modifications, are surely right in looking back to the universally Catholic Fifteenth Century in the youth of Leonardo and Copernicus, for the first portents of what was to come."

So it is not true that the enlightment began or was was led by protestantism (Luther, who was a butcher, certainly didn't lead the enlightenment, and neither did Calvin, who was known for burning scholars at the stake).

It certainly is true. What was Newton, another Deist? Bacon?

Who were Jefferson's 3 heroes of the Enlightenment?

You miss the point anyway. The claim that "deists" led us out of the Middle Ages is pretty much nonsense. Some "Catholics" helped but they were disowned by Mother church, so they were more like default Protestants than Catholics. The great thinkers fled the church and the vast majority became Protestants. Atheists who can't stand the thought of a believer leading us out of the darkness simply mislabel Protestants as deists, and it happens often enough to appear intentional.

---

Well, none of that is true. Nada. Zip. Galileo was a devout Catholic all of his life, even after his condemnation by the Church. Name a single great thinker of the scientific revolution who was kicked out of the Church and then became a protestant leader of the revolution. You cannot because there were no protestant leaders of the scientific revolution during the enlightenment. Certainly the protestant leaders themselves were as hateful of scientific thinkers of the day as was the Catholic Church. Michael Servetus was burned to death in 1553 by Calvin at Geneva for his book Christianismino Restitutio, which described the "lesser" circulation of the human body because it also described the way in which he believed the holy spirit entered the body. Despite the religious overtones, his insights into human anatomy won praise throughout Europe.

[radorth]

Well, none of that is true. Nada. Zip. Galileo was a devout Catholic all of his life, even after his condemnation by the Church. Name a single great thinker of the scientific revolution who was kicked out of the Church and then became a protestant leader of the revolution. You cannot because there were no protestant leaders of the scientific revolution during the enlightenment.

Who said the Enlightenment was just about science? That's a minor part to any thinker. And what was Newton, a Catholic?

What about Pierre Bayle, Huguenot Protestant, whom Voltaire praised as “the greatest master of the art of reasoning that ever wrote, Bayle, great and wise, all systems overthrows.”

Bacon?

Was John Locke Catholic? I assume you believe so based on your above statement.

Who first condemned slavery, John Wesley or Voltaire? Wesley was calling it “the scourge of the earth” while Voltaire was defending it as necessary to the economy. But would anyone here know that? I doubt it. The vast majority of atheists believed Locke was a “deist” (Until I quoted his own writings)

Your history perspective is biased and now you have to cross John Locke off your list because he sounds just like the “fundies” you so readily condemn here. Am I right?

And then, do James Madison and the other American Founders count? I mean your post is just laughable.

How about the abolitionists? Were they Catholic? No.

The evangelist Whitefield was credited in a recent book by Professor Nancy Ruttenberg as the author of the Democratic personality, no less. Any idea why she thought so? According to Franklin Philadelphia got enlightened in a way Franklin described as "wonderful," in a week or two actually.

Like I said, you guys are living off the fat spiritual legacy Jesus left behind and you don’t have a clue. You’d have us back in an atheist police state, and we know that because wherever Jesus has been shut out or Christians badly persecuted, democracy and freedom were shut out. Even the "deist" Jefferson said to throw out the "rags of the clergy" and keep the Baby.

Read Jesus’ mission statement in Luke 4 and you will see what drove these great thinkers and preachers to inspire us to democracy and equality while the Catholics were doing nothing of the sort.

---

Oh I'm sorry, did Newton receive his revelation about Gravity from a religious source? Oh thats right, he didn't because he got it from a FUCKING APPLE DROPPING ON HIS HEAD.
Pretty lucky God (despite being omnipotent) wasn't around at the time, last time someone gained knowledge from an apple it ended pretty badly for us... apparently.

The point shouldn't be of their origins. It should be, as you so helpfully pointed out, that religion attempted to persecute them for their findings and restrict the knowledge they obtained. The "religious authority" at that time, and this time by the way, were content to simply let any gaps in their knowledge be filled by the barbaric nonsense they've followed for centuries.

Do you think thats a good way to approach human learning or do you concede that religion should stay the fuck out?

I think you should find out 1.what a rhetorical question is, and 2. why Jefferson said that "Christianity, divested of the rags with which the clergy has enveloped it, is the friendliest to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

But he was a man who indeed thought for himself, unlike those who merely claim to.

[radorth]

So I take it, by the deafening silence, we agree that Protestants led the Enlightenment, from Newton to Payle, to Locke, to the Founders to the abolitionists, (Quakers and Methodists mostly), with help from 2 Catholics noted on the science side.

Voltaire we should give very little credit to, since he wrote a justification of slavery at the same time Wesley condemned it. Paine said virtually nothing a Protestant had not said before him

Fair enough?

[Cinjin]

So I take it, by the deafening silence, we agree that Protestants led the Enlightenment, from Newton to Payle, to Locke, to the Founders to the abolitionists, (Quakers and Methodists mostly), with help from 2 Catholics noted on the science side.

Voltaire we should give very little credit to, since he wrote a justification of slavery at the same time Wesley condemned it. Paine said virtually nothing a Protestant had not said before him

Fair enough?

deafening silence? This is a forum pal, not a chat room. You've got to give people time to work, sleep, eat and then get back to you. It looks to me like you get a lot of your information from your youth pastor. Try harder. When I see something worthy of my superior intellect, I will respond and you can subsequently feel foolish.

(I'm just bustin your balls with that last sentence ... but you can't hear my tone of voice, so my humorous mockery is lost.)

[Reforged]

Well, none of that is true. Nada. Zip. Galileo was a devout Catholic all of his life, even after his condemnation by the Church. Name a single great thinker of the scientific revolution who was kicked out of the Church and then became a protestant leader of the revolution. You cannot because there were no protestant leaders of the scientific revolution during the enlightenment.

Who said the Enlightenment was just about science? That's a minor part to any thinker. And what was Newton, a Catholic?

What about Pierre Bayle, Huguenot Protestant, whom Voltaire praised as “the greatest master of the art of reasoning that ever wrote, Bayle, great and wise, all systems overthrows.”

Bacon?

Was John Locke Catholic? I assume you believe so based on your above statement.

Who first condemned slavery, John Wesley or Voltaire? Wesley was calling it “the scourge of the earth” while Voltaire was defending it as necessary to the economy. But would anyone here know that? I doubt it. The vast majority of atheists believed Locke was a “deist” (Until I quoted his own writings)

Your history perspective is biased and now you have to cross John Locke off your list because he sounds just like the “fundies” you so readily condemn here. Am I right?

And then, do James Madison and the other American Founders count? I mean your post is just laughable.

How about the abolitionists? Were they Catholic? No.

The evangelist Whitefield was credited in a recent book by Professor Nancy Ruttenberg as the author of the Democratic personality, no less. Any idea why she thought so? According to Franklin Philadelphia got enlightened in a way Franklin described as "wonderful," in a week or two actually.

Like I said, you guys are living off the fat spiritual legacy Jesus left behind and you don’t have a clue. You’d have us back in an atheist police state, and we know that because wherever Jesus has been shut out or Christians badly persecuted, democracy and freedom were shut out. Even the "deist" Jefferson said to throw out the "rags of the clergy" and keep the Baby.

Read Jesus’ mission statement in Luke 4 and you will see what drove these great thinkers and preachers to inspire us to democracy and equality while the Catholics were doing nothing of the sort.

---

Oh I'm sorry, did Newton receive his revelation about Gravity from a religious source? Oh thats right, he didn't because he got it from a FUCKING APPLE DROPPING ON HIS HEAD.
Pretty lucky God (despite being omnipotent) wasn't around at the time, last time someone gained knowledge from an apple it ended pretty badly for us... apparently.

The point shouldn't be of their origins. It should be, as you so helpfully pointed out, that religion attempted to persecute them for their findings and restrict the knowledge they obtained. The "religious authority" at that time, and this time by the way, were content to simply let any gaps in their knowledge be filled by the barbaric nonsense they've followed for centuries.

Do you think thats a good way to approach human learning or do you concede that religion should stay the fuck out?

I think you should find out 1.what a rhetorical question is, and 2. why Jefferson said that "Christianity, divested of the rags with which the clergy has enveloped it, is the friendliest to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."

But he was a man who indeed thought for himself, unlike those who merely claim to.

Sorry I didn't answer quickly. I didn't check this thread for sometime because frankly I had better things to do.
I think you should answer my questions before you ask me to look *anything* up or shut up and hope no-one notices how badly I just ruined your entire arguement.
Fair enough? :-)

[Faith No More]

So I take it, by the deafening silence, we agree that Protestants led the Enlightenment, from Newton to Payle, to Locke, to the Founders to the abolitionists, (Quakers and Methodists mostly), with help from 2 Catholics noted on the science side.

Acutally, that deafening silence is me not giving a shit one way or the other.

[orogenicman]

So I take it, by the deafening silence, we agree that Protestants led the Enlightenment, from Newton to Payle, to Locke, to the Founders to the abolitionists, (Quakers and Methodists mostly), with help from 2 Catholics noted on the science side.

Voltaire we should give very little credit to, since he wrote a justification of slavery at the same time Wesley condemned it. Paine said virtually nothing a Protestant had not said before him

Fair enough?

Not really. Not at all. If you are going to discredit Voltaire, I have to discredit Luther and Calvin, since they executed witches and intellectuals, and were really no better than the Church they were protesting against.

As for Paine, you'll have to show me where protestants were making these kinds of statements:

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true.

Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.

[frankiej]

I don't really know why you care about such a thing.

[Phil]

So I take it, by the deafening silence, we agree that Protestants led the Enlightenmen

Na, like a fundamentalist idiot you miss the point of the silence. It's because your idea is truly as stupid as your god is.

[The Grand Nudger]

What a wonderful choice of words, "spiritual fat". I think I'm going to borrow that. I particularly dislike fat, I try to trim most of it before I cook and then the rest of it as I eat. You know that stuff isn't good for you. Just how much "spiritual" fat is there on this carcass? Do you happen to have a vegetarian menu? All of the sustenance, none of the disgusting fat?