Monday 15 June 2015

The Ups and Downs of Religion in the 16th Century


Before the fifteenth century a common theme kept through the years was the thought of how religion is an important and fundamental element of our society and to throw away such a gift was to throw away common sense. However after the fifteenth century, especially after the Enlightenment period, that opinion changes greatly. Afterward it was thought that to push aside the idea of God is to being doing the right thing in the pursuit of higher knowledge and understanding.  



After the Enlightenment period up to current dates the debate on religion has been ongoing, both sides having conquered and lost ground in the struggle. With one side claiming for knowledge and the other for faith the deciding factor comes down from the people, usually varying on its opinion depending on the time period in which it was being argued.


The Enlightenment period really was the kick-off point for all of these debates, and is the start of humans as a society moving away from the persistent  thought of God. In Ernst Cassirer’s book The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (1932) he believes that  Enlightenment was "a part and a special phase of the whole intellectual development through which modern philosophic thought gained its characteristic self-confidence and self-consciousness". Ernst thought that it was very natural for humans to start to questions these thoughts as we develop, and that the fact that we have the ability to question God means that we have every more right too. Just as Rene Descartes said ‘Je pense donc je suis’.  To question and argue and debate over what is real and what is not is one of society's greatest gift and it was this idea which thrived during the Enlightenment period.



After the Enlightenment some religious beliefs had been fully pushed away by certain people while many turned to Deism. Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world but rather allows it to function according to the laws of nature. It seems to be a compromise between two extremes of overly religious in faith and those who were atheists.  It gained followers all through Europe in the 17th century from people born and raised in another faith who did not fully believe in notions such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and the supernatural interpretation of events such as miracles. It was the acknowledgement of a higher power who was subtle enough to not meddle and have requirements in the lives of its believers.


In the end, the 17th century and further was a confusing and complicated time period that lead to many battles and many innocent citizens falling victim to others beliefs.  The constant back and forth of beliefs led to constant strife and strain on the new generations seeing as along with their new air of independence as they moved through the centuries they also now had a choice of what they believed in rather than having a religion taught to them since their birth.  

3 comments:

  1. In your third paragraph regarding the enlightenment period, I completely agree with the fact that it was the kick-off point for all the debate that followed regarding religion versus logic. I also extremely admire your opinion of Deism being a compromise between the two sides as stated in the paragraph that follows. The fact that the concept of God could be questioned and scientifically sought after was a very effective way for both sides of belief to find middle ground and come closer to accepting each other’s sides. You touch on the loss of innocent lives over the past few years in your final paragraph but go on to explain how these losses are what led us now to have freedom in choosing what we want to believe, not being forced by outside factors. Although some believers do push their beliefs onto their children, most will grow up and realize their own beliefs because of the sacrifice of all these lives. In today’s world, it is easy to see the dominance science and logic have over religion. However, it may not be perfect peace, but due to the sacrifice made by many over the last century over religion many individuals live at peace now regardless of what they choose to believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree that the argument of religion has been on going for all these years and that both sides can not come to an agreement. People have to come to an agreement religion soon because there are many people who are starting to get very angry with people who do not believe in their religion. You said in the blog "Deism holds that God does not intervene with the functioning of the natural world but rather allows it to function according to the laws of nature." Even though that is true, it is not the perfect middle ground between the two sides. There is another middle ground between the two sides, that is being an agnostic. When you are agnostic you believe that God may or may not exist, you just need actual proof for either option before you can fully believe or not believe in God. I do agree with what you are saying, I just believe that an agnostic is a better middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love the idea that deism is an option to please both sides with how god could be questioned or proved by science makes a happy medium ground for both. Although i believe that neither group will be happy until its their beliefs being seen in the light of things. You talk about how other religions were being lost of how in the loss of innoncent lives as well which i completely agree with. Many families push beliefs on to other people but i also believe that it as ultimtley their choice to beleive them or not. Sacrifice will have to be made to make a happy medium occur.

    ReplyDelete