More foolishness.of generalizations.
"That's a bit like saying the Reign of Terror was a product of the Enlightenment therefore nothing good could have come from it" = Here is something that you will agree is obviously fallacious, yet you are using the same logic to criticise something you dislike.
Actually Enlightenment contributed to the rebellion against the royal houses in Europe and the colonies, and of course, the rise of Democracy, and the separation of church and state. To realize this distinct influence one need only read the writings of the Founding Fathers of the USA.
Even though the Enlightenment contributed to the Rebellion in France the cause is more specific. There was a series of years of the little ice age where crops failed, and the government responded by hoarding food for the royalty and the elite. The historical abuse and corruption of Royal houses of Europe greatly contributed to the Rebellion and the Enlightenment gave grounds for the cause
The 'little ice age' didn't necessitate specific political policies to eradicate tens of thousands of those deemed to be a threat to the revolution though.
Many Enlightenment philosophies were far from liberal, yet that obviously doesn't preclude others from contributing to liberalism.
The problem with the terms 'Enlightenment'/'Age of Reason' is that it makes people think there was a clean break from the past rather than simply being the continuing development of what had been evolving from the late Middle Ages onwards.
No magic here, and yes ideas evolve,and you failed to acknowledge the true roots of the riseof democracy.
Christianity WAS, past tense, the most important influence in Christian Europe, and that was the problem resisting change, and not the primary source nor the origin in history for the rise of Democracy
Again
liberal democracy is not simply democracy and, as I've repeatedly said, is what I am discussing. The key term relates to political liberalism which was not founded in ancient Greece. It is liberalism that emerged from the Christian tradition not simply democracy. I am discussing liberalism, clear enough?
Enlightenment philosophers, as with all other philosophers, built on concepts that existed in the societies they lived in. 'New' ideas are usually adaptation and combinations of existing ideas rather than something truly original, that is how they are able to spread. They don't emerge out of a vacuum.
For example:
"Such impressive studies as Gerhard B. Ladner,
The Idea of Reform: Its Impact on Christian Thought and Action in the Age of the Fathers; Charles N. Cochrane,
Christianity and Classical Culture; Karl Löwith,
Meaning in History; and Marjorie Reeves,
The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages make it certain beyond question that a very real philosophy of human progress appears almost from the very beginning in Christian theology, a philosophy stretching from St. Augustine (indeed his predecessors, Eusebius and Tertullian) down through the seventeenth century...
Probably the first full and complete statement of progress is that of Turgot, expressed in his celebrated discourse before an admiring audience at the Sorbonne in December 1750, one entitled "A Philosophical Review of the Successive Advances of the Human Mind." In this discourse progress is made to cover not simply the arts and sciences but, on their base, the whole of culture—manner, mores, institutions, legal codes, economy, etc. Even more comprehensive is Turgot's "Plan for Two Discourses on Universal History" ... In Turgot's "Universal History" we are given an account of the progress of mankind which, in comprehensiveness and ordering of materials, would not be equalled until Turgot's ardent admirer, Condorcet wrote his
Outline of an Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind during the French Revolution. Condorcet wrote it in a period of but a few weeks all the while hiding from the Jacobin police in an attic (a staunch supporter of the Revolution, Condorcet had managed to incur Robespierre's hostility).
Before leaving Turgot, it is important to stress once again the historical importance of Christianity in the formation of the secular modern conception of progress in Western Europe. In the first place, Turgot began his career as a reasonably devout student of theology at the Sorbonne, his aspiration then linked to a future in the Church. Second, just six months before the discourse on "The Successive Advances of the Human Mind" was given in 1750, he had presented another public discourse, this one on the crucial importance of Christianity to the progress of mankind. And third, it was Bossuet's
Universal History, which I have already referred to, that Turgot acknowledged to be his inspiration for the writing, or the preparation of a plan of his own "Universal History." Bossuet, proud and convinced Christian that he was, constructed his history in terms of a succession of epochs, all designed and given effect by God.
Turgot allowed God to disappear (he had lost his faith by 1751 when he wrote his "Universal History") and replaced Bossuet's "epochs" by "stages": stages of social and cultural progress, each emerging from its predecessor through human rather than divine causes. But Turgot's alterations notwithstanding, it is unlikely that his own secular work on progress would have been written apart from the inspiration derived from Bishop Bossuet and other Christian philosophers of history. He is an epitome, in this respect, of the whole history of the modern idea of progress."
R Nisbet - The idea of progress
Rise of Humanism, and the intellectual movements in Europe and the colonies as reflected in the writings of the Founding Fathers of the USA.
And where did humanism come from? [hint: Christianity and Greek philosophy]
It was outrageous nonsense to propose that the power dispute between Henry IV and the Pope had anything to do with the rise of the separation of church and state.
Always great when people lionise 'The Age of Reason', then dismiss academic scholarship out of hand because it doesn't align with their ideological preferences..
I mean how could a significant dispute that formalised jurisdictions of power between the church and state and led to the development of independent power structures have had any possible impact on the evolution of European secularism. Sounds awfully far fetched to consider a dispute that led to a difference in thinking from the King/Emperor ruling from
inside the church, to ruling
beside the church whereby the 'Vicar of Christ' turned from a regal title, to a Papal title. Imagine thinking that an event that led to an acceptance that the Church held dominion over the spiritual aspects of life, and the king responsibility for the temporal aspects of life could have even the slightest connection to the long term development of secularism. Outrageous nonsense I say!
From St. Gregory VII to Innocent III more than a hundred years later the Popes came to consider kings and Emperors less and less as functionaries of the Church; instead of encouraging rulers of the priest-kingly type they themselves would at least from Innocent III onward claim the title Vicar of Christ. They made it increasingly clear that for them rulers were simply the leaders of peoples and holders of territories.
These Popes tried to tie to themselves in addition to the membership of all Christians in the universal Church by
connecting them with the Roman Church through a special bond which might assume various forms, but most effectively the feudal relation of vassal to lord. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, they tried to make the Emperor's protection of the Roman Church exclusively a matter of duty gradually eliminating all imperial claims over the Papacy.
Medieval thoughts on church and state - GB Lander
Have you got any actual reasons for dismissing the scholarly material I quoted as 'outrageous nonsense'? Perhaps you could make some rational arguments against the points raised?
