Display:
Luther and Protestants were part of the enlightenment process surely?

Why do you class the Assassins as fundamentalists?

I'm not 100% convinced either. And I'm sure I could present the argument rather better.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:31:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The reformation happened in the 16th century. It's part of the late Renaissance. The Enlightenment is conventionally identified with the 18th century.

What happened in the 17th century that made all the difference is religious war and Newton's Principia.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:38:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Luther and Protestants were part of the enlightenment process surely?

That is only a myth permeated presently in Protestant-majority, especially 'Anglo-Saxon' countries today. Luther was not an opponent of theocracy, nor of burning heretics and witches, nor of anti-semitism. Calvin established a kind of mini-Taleban in his city. The founders of settlements in what became the USA weren't persecuted who were hunted away but persecuters, sects who took religious judgement in their own hand, hunted away. But even bloody Cromwell was a religious fanatic.

Protestantism ended up as a(n involuntary) facilitator of the Enlightement only as a consequence of the Thirty Years War, and the Counter-Reformation in the areas given to Catholic rulers then.

BTW, not many know, Newton himself was a fundamentalist - one who rejected Athanasian Christianity (e.g. everything from the Nicean Creed), and who thought that his greates life achievement was not the theory of mechanics, not the theory of gravity, not his work on differential mathematics, but an almost forgotten book in which he attempted to reconcile the chronology of the Old Testament with that of then known ancient Middle Eastern royal lists (e.g. Egyptian, Assyrian, etc.).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:18:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Protestantism ended up as a(n involuntary) facilitator of the Enlightement only as a consequence of the Thirty Years War, and the Counter-Reformation in the areas given to Catholic rulers then.

More bloody reading to do. But that's sort of what I meant.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:20:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Protestantism ended up as a(n involuntary) facilitator of the Enlightement only as a consequence of the Thirty Years War, and the Counter-Reformation in the areas given to Catholic rulers then.

I have threatend before that I might do a history of Protestantism in Germany and its role in enlightenment that would quitely run against this thesis......

But I am scared (-:

by PeWi on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:12:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, do.  I'm confused now that I've read DoDo's comment.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
by p------- on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 06:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A curse on him and his fundamentalistic dogmas. One day, when I've finally read enough about him, I'll need to write down why I think his machinations are part of the problems what we at ET are struggling against: Class wars, Glass Ceilings, Class Ceilings, the lot. Another example: My mentor at the University generally went hopping mad on Calvin when we discussed why there are to this day too few female scientists, certainly in the Netherlands. Interesting thoughts.

Then again, my mentor is a Catholic.....

by Nomad on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 05:24:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series