Problems with the Enlightenment

So, not much in the last week, except some spam. Anyone want to critique my knowledge of history?

My viewpoint,

The biggest issue I see is your time line of natural laws. My time line goes to king david. Ref Jordan codex.

Keeping it simple. Let’s agree that a deist is a form of deism. And deism is a form of atheistism. Thus, the religion of atheistism was what the sadducees were at the time of jesus at the sanhedrin. Jesus was a form of Christian sadducee. Not so much following the henllenistic Judaism, but the Christian religion of knowledge. Which jesus was leading.

2 big political parties. The sadducee, who do not believe in heaven ,after life angels or God after creation.

The pharisees, paul’so religion. Basically, the nt.

Common factor, the mosaic laws.

The people were agreeing with jesus in forming the Jewish religion on king Davids god. When God was both male and female. And to clean up the midrash .

Point being, jesus’ contribution was his spirit of the laws, the logos. And a check and balance system of governance.

Philo of Alexanderia, also known as Philo Judaeus lived at the time of jesus and brought Mary and Jesus work back into religious philosophy for rethinking. Which was picked up by montesquieu of France, known for Spirit of the laws. I think Francis Bacon was known for his Lawsecond of Science. Both reference as Natural Laws.

The atheist god (knowledge), known as the Natural god (knowledge) or natures god. Nothing more than the spirit of God’s laws, Logos.

Jesus, Philo, st Thomas more, montesquieu.

John Lock - (adam smith, t Jefferson, b Franklin). Declaration of Independence.

Lord Mansfield - Stewart vs Somerset.

William Blackstone.

John Marshall - Marbury vs Madison, which challenges the thinking of the spirit of the law.

Point being - America is the first real test of jesus’ political thinking.

Jesus was popular in Judaism, Christianity, knowledge, gnostic and Islam because of the laws of God.

Sorry, this data will not do you any good, because your focus is on Paul’s Christianity and Peter’s Logos.

But, it should be worth a beer to show you my understanding of jesus outside the bible.

It’s funny, how jesus was mostly hated by both parties who were caught off guard by the people agreeing with jesus to cut regulations and drain the swamp. Does that remind you of anyone today?

“The biggest issue I see is your time line of natural laws.”

As always Mike, you wee what you want to see.

“Let’s agree that a deist is a form of deism. And deism is a form of atheistism.”

And you lost me in the second paragraph. About the only thing I agree with is your list of names. Those people existed in that order. I have no idea what you mean about my focus on Paul and Peter.

What I mentioned was “laws of physics that are consistent throughout time and space”, a fundamental rule of science. You are talking about Natural Law Theory, which has some overlap but is not central to this theme. It’s one of many ethical theories, not the center of history the way you portray it.

My mistake. I thought you were talking about religion. What is your point about physics and atheistism for religion? I still could not make the connection with Bacon until I read it again.

You are putting a lot of data in to be consumed.

On the point of natural laws, I feel they were well understood in Judaism. Judah and Israel only ruled themselves for 110 yrs. Being under other powers, they had a need to push natural laws to keep things together.

I do like your subject matter and what you are doing.

Titles of Jesus - god, son of God, prophet of God, Muslim and Messiah. Just to name a few. On my list of top atheists. Jesus is number one. This is contradictory until the laws of nature are understood.

Point being - I think you are covering a subject that is still two decades away from public understanding. I will back you any way I can.

Thanks for the sort of supportive words. The point is expressed in the opening paragraph, to state the problems of the Enlightenment Era. In science vs religion arguments/discussions I see these being swept under the rug. The atheist points out (rightly) that science is so much better for determining what’s real. The theists points out all the things science and modern philosophy miss and how that has led to war and corruption. The atheist points out those things existed before and now they’re talking past each other and adding up dead bodies to see who is worse. This will never lead to mutually finding solutions for anything. Mostly it leads to hoping the other side will just die off. History has shown this is unlikely.

I have found that saying something as simple as “I can’t be certain” causes a massive shift in a conversation with a theist. For many of them, they are probably thinking that’s an opening to convert me, but I have the follow up, and this needs to come after a pause, after giving them the chance to speak, “and neither are you”. If they say they are certain of Jesus in their heart, or whatever, I point out the old and new testaments state that they can’t know God. God showed Moses his backside when Moses asked to see his face. I’m sure there is a Koranic verse for this too. So far, this has served to get my Baptist cousins to quit arguing with me, but my hope it is it eventually leads to dialog.

The point of this series, which has no end in sight at the moment, is to strategically concede points that are established problems of modern knowledge, while preserving the modern methods and giving no ground on the non-existence of the supernatural, by definition. Then chip away at viewpoints like the existence of hell or the historical Jesus or the accuracy of Bible translations. There should be no need to go any further than what is discussed openly in mainstream churches around the world. That should be enough to establish common ground for morality, environmental stewardship, economic justice, the place of self-defense and all the other major issues of the day that are taking resources while the planet burns.

“You are putting a lot of data in to be consumed.”

That’s good feedback, and I know I’m doing that. My hope is to give enough names and dates for those interested, if they want to check my facts or dig deeper. I find a lot of articles out there that start off saying they have some answer and end up just telling a history story. Or, maybe they even have a point, but they get buried in some details that they consider fascinating, but the rest of us don’t.

I can’t remember the last time the Vatican or any other Church top hierarchy debated an atheist. The lower base and homegrown religions can’t shut up. And they can’t even agree beyond faith base concept with each other. Talking science to them is a waste of time for me.

Question was the argument that the church or the king could declare the earth flat, but that did not make it so, in the enlightenment era?

You have a cousin who’s a Baptist. I have a son that’s a Baptist preacher. Guess how old the Earth is? You got it!

I don’t know how talking science with anyone could be a waste of time. As far as I can tell, it comes to everyone naturally. Elijah proposes an experiment to show whose god is greater, and is careful to check for trickery from his opponent.

Wild speculation and assuming agency where there isn’t any also comes naturally, so that’s why we have peer review and repeat experiments, so, yeah, explaining that can get tiresome. But, the alternative, letting people teach their children that magic is real, has also been shown to have negative affects on culture. Given that the institutions we have built to pass on knowledge are in jeopardy, it seems like a good time to drive superstition as far away as we can.