# Best treatment/critique of Enlightenment thinking



## sotzo (Nov 27, 2007)

What are your recommendations for the best works that rigorously crititque the Enlightenment?

Am interested in a crititque of both the overarching philospohical implications of Enlightenment thinking as well as the implications such thinking had on biblical criticism.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 17, 2008)

Amazon.com: The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Belief in Theories, Revised Edition: Books: Roy A. Clouser


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 17, 2008)

I am not 100% sure how much use this is as I have not read it yet, but you could try R.J. Rushdoony's book _To Be As God_.


----------



## LadyCalvinist (Feb 17, 2008)

Interesting question, in grad school I had to study the Enlightenment and by the end of the course I was heartily sick of it. The Enlightenment glorified reason to the point that they wanted to get rid of religion because they felt that it wasn't reasonable! That is, they made reason their god, so of course 
they had no use for the supernatural, miracles, sin, and anything that reminded them how foolish and sinful we really are.

As for critiques of it I second Rushdoony's _To be as God_. I have read part of it and Rushdoony boldly rips 18th, 19th and 20th century philosophers and writers although the book is not strictly a critique of the Enlightenment.

One place I recommend you try is the Intercollegiate Studies Institute Intercollegiate Studies Institute . They are largely catholic but they do have many books and articles critical of the Enlightenment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 17, 2008)

Excellent ontological critique of Enlightenment
Amazon.com: Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology: Books: James K. A. Smith,John Milbank

caveat emptor on Smith's "Christian Socialism."


----------



## Civbert (Feb 17, 2008)

LadyCalvinist said:


> Interesting question, in grad school I had to study the Enlightenment and by the end of the course I was heartily sick of it. The Enlightenment glorified reason to the point that they wanted to get rid of religion because they felt that it wasn't reasonable! That is, they made reason their god, so of course they had no use for the supernatural, miracles, sin, and anything that reminded them how foolish and sinful we really are.



Thanks for the excuse to rant... 

That's why I think presuppositionalism has so much potential. The problem with the Enlightenment wasn't that they glorified reason, but that they had faulty presuppositions to start from.

For instance: The Enlightenment may reason that the miracles are unreasonable because they violate "The LAWS OF NATURE" (sounded with deep echo reverberations). The faulty presuppositions: 1) all events have a natural explanation, 2) only what can be verified by the scientific process is true 3) the presuppositions of empiricism. 

I worry a disregard for "reason" is one of the backlashes from the Enlightenment. You will often hear pious sounding phrases like "mere human reason" or "God's reasoning is beyond human reasoning".. Christians have followed the trend of postmodernism into rejecting logic and objective truth - saying a too high view of "human reason" has lead to "mere intellectual belief" that lacks "heart felt trust" and "Christianity is not 'rational' - it's 'relational' ". There's a desire for a "gut level" Christianity - even if that means setting aside clear thought and reason. "After all, we are talking about faith - not reason. Right?"

I can't tell you how many times I've read that the definition of faith is "believing in something despite contrary evidence" from unbelievers and atheists. In other words, "faith is _irrational_ belief". (And don't forget it's _heartfelt _belief, as if that were an excuse for being irrational). And it is sad how few Christians can respond to this because they agree with the definition. 

I recently heard a Professor of apologetics say that someone can believe "intellectually" that everything in the Bible is true, yet lack saving faith. That's amazing - an unregenerate person can believe the Word of God is true? Someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and died for the forgiveness of sins and rose again from the dead ... and is not saved!? I thought that "unbeliever" is another word for "unregenerate". How can a person believe the Word of God is true if they are unregenerate? Impossible. 

I could go on and on. But I'll get off my soapbox. I might have upset the sensitivities of a few people who read this. 

P.S. And the problem isn't "autonomous human reasoning" despite what Bahnsen says. A modus tollens is a modus tollens whether one is a Christian or an atheist.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 18, 2008)

> I recently heard a Professor of apologetics say that someone can believe "intellectually" that everything in the Bible is true, yet lack saving faith. That's amazing - an unregenerate person can believe the Word of God is true? Someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and died for the forgiveness of sins and rose again from the dead ... and is not saved!? I thought that "unbeliever" is another word for "unregenerate". How can a person believe the Word of God is true if they are unregenerate? Impossible.



What about the devils who believe said propositions and yet tremble?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 18, 2008)

How much of American culture is still affected by the Enlightment? And how much has now been changed by this postmodernism stuff?


----------



## Civbert (Feb 18, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> > I recently heard a Professor of apologetics say that someone can believe "intellectually" that everything in the Bible is true, yet lack saving faith. That's amazing - an unregenerate person can believe the Word of God is true? Someone who believes Jesus is the Son of God and died for the forgiveness of sins and rose again from the dead ... and is not saved!? I thought that "unbeliever" is another word for "unregenerate". How can a person believe the Word of God is true if they are unregenerate? Impossible.
> 
> 
> What about the devils who believe said propositions and yet tremble?



Do they believe Jesus is the Son of God? [bible] James 2:19[/bible]
The demons are certainly monotheists - which is a step in the right direction (for a person). But that belief is only sufficient to justify fearing God. And even if they believed the whole of Scripture, they are demons. The "good news" is bad news for demons.


----------



## Dieter Schneider (Feb 18, 2008)

As a young Christian I was greatly helped by Francis Schaeffer's 'Escape From Reason'. It made me hungry for more.


----------

