Dear Teotonio:
Thanks for your intervention. I fully agree with you.
I have been interested in this topic from my young days.
Science has advanced to such an extent that it cannot either prove or
disprove the existence of God. Religion has advanced to such an extent
as not to need the support of Science to speak of God. But to my mind
integration between Science and Religion is possible because "Truth cannot
contradict truth"... Both are complementary, not conflicting. There is no
need to attack Religion
in the name of Science, nor Science in the name of Religion...
...Were the ardent
defenders of enlightenment necessarily atheists? I believe not. They only
wanted to separate matters, and did not want Churchy reasoning to seek to
continue its medieval power to have a last word in matters where the
Church
men (with the exception of some rebels like Abelardo, Ockam, and the like)
had ceased to accompany the scientific-technological progress.
*In fact, Enlightenment has been a time of purification by trying all the
methods.
The results varied. But it cannot be said that these savants became all
'a-theists',
as you well remarked. There was a progress. Religion did not come to an end
but it was purified. Enlightenment was prepared by several factors,
like Reformation and Renaissance, and it was a struggle of different
powers. John Locke (1632-1704) inaugurated the Enlightenment and
established the contours of all subsequent developments. In response to his
own question,
"What is Enlightenment?", Immanuel Kant wrote in 1784 that it "is man's
release from his
self-incurred tutelage". For Kant, the guiding principle of Enlightenment
was the use of in-
dividual critical reason without direction from any external authority and
without deference to tradition.
Regards,
Fr.Ivo
