Enlightened Chains, pg. 14
using reason to put faith beyond the grasp of reason. To do this, he insisted on a sort of realism that split the human experience. On the one hand there was scientific realism where science explores the world to discover how it works. On the other is a moral realism where moral truth can be discovered as those moral beliefs that translate directly across time and culture.
Scientific realism is useful for examining that which can be directly observed, measured, and studied. However, there are aspects to human existence that move beyond this ability. These include the “ideas” of reason - God, immortality, and freedom. Even within the framework proposed by Kant, the existence of God - and thus the objective existence of faith - cannot be proven or dis-proven. It can only be accepted as part of the whole framework or left out.
That is the real crux of the matter for the Enlightenment. If only those things that can be positively proven are allowed, then there is no room for faith at all - such as in the writings of David Hume. At best, it can be used somewhat cynically to control the masses, as Voltaire suggests. If, however, some space is left beyond the reach of reason, there is some room for faith to exist. The narrowest possible interpretation of this is that “God” is simply another word for “unknown” - an argument often made by the contemporary author Richard Dawkins - and one with which Voltaire, Diderot, and perhaps Spinoza might agree.
This is an excessively narrow description of God, however. Montesquieu, Locke, and Mendelssohn were among those who sought to expand that description, or at least to create a space for that description to be written by others. While the exact description seemed to vary somewhat, all agreed that there was on reason why religion and science
Next Page
Scientific realism is useful for examining that which can be directly observed, measured, and studied. However, there are aspects to human existence that move beyond this ability. These include the “ideas” of reason - God, immortality, and freedom. Even within the framework proposed by Kant, the existence of God - and thus the objective existence of faith - cannot be proven or dis-proven. It can only be accepted as part of the whole framework or left out.
That is the real crux of the matter for the Enlightenment. If only those things that can be positively proven are allowed, then there is no room for faith at all - such as in the writings of David Hume. At best, it can be used somewhat cynically to control the masses, as Voltaire suggests. If, however, some space is left beyond the reach of reason, there is some room for faith to exist. The narrowest possible interpretation of this is that “God” is simply another word for “unknown” - an argument often made by the contemporary author Richard Dawkins - and one with which Voltaire, Diderot, and perhaps Spinoza might agree.
This is an excessively narrow description of God, however. Montesquieu, Locke, and Mendelssohn were among those who sought to expand that description, or at least to create a space for that description to be written by others. While the exact description seemed to vary somewhat, all agreed that there was on reason why religion and science
Next Page
© 2004 by Xpatriated Texan
<< Home