Recognition of enlightenment as a Faith

The problem I find is that often these things only occur in either one form or the other, and so appear almost as a dichotomy of method, when in fact I find them both valid and therefore both useful.

My ideal Temple would have both echo chambers and fight pits, and with other places in between too!! I tend to like structure more then just open slather, because I find it enables focus to explore ones knowledge and ignorance by doing rather then being told. I just think its better to work with people rather then work against them.....

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote:
Edit: i do like the idea that “Enlightenment” qualifies as a faith, though.

I see it as a faith in the process, not the end result of the process. It is the journey not the destination and if we cant explore the depth of truth what good will we ever hope to achieve as a species.

Thats how i see it too. And i do have faith in the process- i think we NEED the process to be stringnent. I just also think there is a need for more...

Im not an expert and i admit that. Im just a guy with an opinion and here it is:

The thinkers of the Enlightenment were culturally steeped in the morality of a religious society to begin with. Its easy to say “do away with this outdated religious blither” when the subculture that you emerged from has already completely accepted the proposition that life is meaningful and that individuals are entitled to a bit of respect and autonomy. But the conclusion that we are entitled to respect or autonomy is likely the result of earlier religious proposotions that we are made in Gods image, that we are Allahs children or Jehovahs chosen people or that Jesus died for us and that we are all reflections of Brahman etc etc. Take away the inheret association with an underlying divine principle, and we are nothing but meat-bags. Our value as an individual is relative to our power over others or our utility to them. Which means “slaves and masters”, essentially.

Twigga wrote: .... based on an unflinching attitude towards truth - sought diligently and earnestly...

Which has culminated into the rule of “prove it with evidence it or you cant claim it is true”. This is a great rule for building functional knowledge but it leaves us devoid of a justification for ethical behavior thats any more significant than “i just LIKE being nice” or “i dont want to be punished”

Because at the end of the day, we cant PROVE that any of it actually it MATTERS.... so it doesnt matter what sort of person i am, or if i live, or die, or kill. It doesnt matter if people in general are happy or if they suffer. Its all equal except to the degree that the deed or its consequences make ME happy or unhappy, because my immediate pleasure or power is all ive got.

Thats the way i understand it.

I think there is a deep respect for life in enlightenment thinking due to it's inherent difference from death - I can observe a living organism interacting in an ecosystem that is healthy and whole; I cannot do that with a dead organism. I think you may have confused enlightenment thinking with reductionist thinking, possibly, here OB1(?)

As for the "does it matter if I do right things or wrong things?" - the enlightenment thinkers seemed to have a strong sense of justice (rights for women and slaves) that their predecessors lacked. I think this stems from a pro-education attitude - that when I learn, and understand what it is like to have to do without - to have a thing taken from me - and I face that suffering, without seeking revenge (which would be to be distracted by a completely different aspect or issue entirely) - I recognise that it feels bad.

"In a world of abundance, that I am able to create out of this world of scarcity, using my science..." (thinks the enlightenment thinker) "... we no longer need to face this problem of feeling bad!" The enlightenment thinker has faith in their community abilities to overcome the difficulties and adversities facing humanity as a whole. I believe it is a hopeful "faith".

Twigga wrote: I think there is a deep respect for life in enlightenment thinking due to it's inherent difference from death - I can observe a living organism interacting in an ecosystem that is healthy and whole; I cannot do that with a dead organism. I think you may have confused enlightenment thinking with reductionist thinking, possibly, here OB1(?)

I dont think so. Unless “reductionist thinking” means more than i think it means. And I do admit that i havent read either Locke or Hobbes since around high school, which was a very long time ago. Im confident they presented a cogent and essentially altruistic moral system for interacting with society. What i say here is not meant as a critique of that system. If you can use it then go for it! I will respect it as your faith.

But they are long dead and whatever system they may have advocated, and whether or not you and some other subset of modern people might adopt it, culture at large is moving on. Im not referring to their specific opinions on any given subject. I am extrapolating the end result of the general process of relying soley on rational analysis of the observable and provable “facts” as the model that we use to determine our relationship with reality. The legacy of the Enlightenment thinkers is the primacy of rational thinking: i am talking the relationship between nihilism and strict rationality.

As for the "does it matter if I do right things or wrong things?" - the enlightenment thinkers seemed to have a strong sense of justice (rights for women and slaves) that their predecessors lacked. I think this stems from a pro-education attitude - that when I learn, and understand what it is like to have to do without - to have a thing taken from me - and I face that suffering, without seeking revenge (which would be to be distracted by a completely different aspect or issue entirely) - I recognise that it feels bad.

"In a world of abundance, that I am able to create out of this world of scarcity, using my science..." (thinks the enlightenment thinker) "... we no longer need to face this problem of feeling bad!" The enlightenment thinker has faith in their community abilities to overcome the difficulties and adversities facing humanity as a whole. I believe it is a hopeful "faith".

I think thats awesome! Its a wonderful and positive way to view ones place in society. I notice in your example that “feeling bad” is the means used to determine what actions ought to be taken. “Feeling bad” holds roughly an equivilant place to “sin” or “evil” of the religious systems, in the sense that its something to be avoided or reduced. As a consequence of his or her personal magnamity, the Enlightenment thinker in your example will say “with my science i will reduce fhe suffering of my community”, and thats wonderful. But theres no logical reason he or she might not instead conclude “with my science (or power) i will increase my own happiness, even though it cause great suffering to others”. In a world without divine underpinnings (which cannot be proven with replicable evidence) both are equally valid aims, rationally.

Edit

Also, Im not “debating”.
I have no need to make you believe what i believe and im not trying to prove you wrong. Im only saying what seems right/true to me based on my own experiences and frame of reference.

My understanding of reductionist thinking is that it takes things apart; the cogs of the bike, the chain off the cogs, the pedals off the cranks, until, yes, you are right, they do become essentially meaningless. On the way you discover aspect that allow you to explain phenomena that are very useful (the material the cogs are made of is equally hard as the material the chain is made of, so they are able to wear each other down. This process of entropy means that bicycles require maintainance, and cannot function indefinitely) that is hard to see if you are looking at the big scale of the whole bicycle.

But reductionist thinking isn't the only kind of thinking in scientific thinking. There is also systems thinking. Systems thinking looks at the causal mechanisms between feet on pedals pushing wheels, and wind blowing on exposed skin on your face leading to an invigorating release of endorphins... Behold! A cyclist is born! *chorus of angels*

Sorry... I might have got a bit carried away there. I am not a very good enlightenment thinker! But there is space for faith and wonder, I think.

P.S. to OB1 - The nice thing about not knowing what I believe myself is that I don't much mind whether you agree or disagree with me, I rarely agree with myself one day to another so I don't see why I should be pressing you to! I am just enjoying exploring ideas with you.

Twigga wrote: My understanding of reductionist thinking is that it takes things apart; the cogs of the bike, the chain off the cogs, the pedals off the cranks, until, yes, you are right, they do become essentially meaningless. On the way you discover aspect that allow you to explain phenomena that are very useful (the material the cogs are made of is equally hard as the material the chain is made of, so they are able to wear each other down. This process of entropy means that bicycles require maintainance, and cannot function indefinitely) that is hard to see if you are looking at the big scale of the whole bicycle.

But reductionist thinking isn't the only kind of thinking in scientific thinking. There is also systems thinking. Systems thinking looks at the causal mechanisms between feet on pedals pushing wheels, and wind blowing on exposed skin on your face leading to an invigorating release of endorphins... Behold! A cyclist is born! *chorus of angels*

Sorry... I might have got a bit carried away there. I am not a very good enlightenment thinker! But there is space for faith and wonder, I think.

P.S. to OB1 - The nice thing about not knowing what I believe myself is that I don't much mind whether you agree or disagree with me, I rarely agree with myself one day to another so I don't see why I should be pressing you to! I am just enjoying exploring ideas with you.

This was a cool post, especially the angels lol. I dont really have anything in particular to add at this point, so i havent, but it just occurred to me that maybe i can be more useful by requesting information rather than trying to contribute it so... why don you ahem enlighten me? Lol
Youve mentioned slavery and womens rights already, could you maybe share some of the particular themes or details of Enlightenment thinking that especially inspire you? And if Enlightenment can be considered a Faith, what would you say its basic tenents are?
I wont actually know if you get anything wrong, either, so dont worry about that lol.