The twilight of the Age of Enlightenment
Do you think we live in a Christian culture? or in a post-Christian culture? From where do we get a respect for reason, a commitment to toleration and a willingness to live in a pluralist society without wanting to change it by force? Do you think Christians share your views? and what about people of other religions? What are traditional values, and are trends in our society undermining them? Do beliefs about origins have any relevance to these questions?
This article is based on a BBC Radio 4 broadcast: a programme in the Analysis series (8 pm, 26th January 1995) which addressed the question of beliefs and values in our society. It made extensive use of interviews with scholars and commentators who have contributed to the history of ideas or philosophical trends in our society. Sad to say, a Christian voice was absent - but the programme did have value in helping to assess thinking in scholarly circles, and in stimulating positive responses from us to this debate.
The context for the whole programme was the dominant influence of the Age of Enlightenment on social thought patterns. For two centuries, rationality and reason have been highly prized. These were considered to be the tools to transform society, to bring order out of chaos and knowledge out of superstition and bigotry. The same principles were applied to individuals: people believed that they had found a way to gain control over their own lives. The programme drew attention to the way the theory of evolution by natural selection fitted into this cultural context. Accounts of evolution were often presented in terms of progress, with the emergence of higher organisms and man associated with increasing control over the environment. Evolutionary change was perceived as moving inexorably towards a goal. It was noted that the political views of many early evolutionists were inclined towards socialism, and some became communists. The melange of ideas was blended together so convincingly that people really felt they knew how to engineer social change for the better.
The problem the programme was addressing was the failure of the enlightenment approach to come up to expectations. After two centuries, the world does not look a very safe place and people's lives lack the security which they desire. Escaping from religion and dogma has not given people satisfying alternatives. Scientists have lost the confidence which people once placed in them. Communist experiments at social re-engineering have failed. People are looking for alternatives.
Three challenges to Enlightenment beliefs were described - although no advocates of these alternatives were given an opportunity to say anything on the programme. First, Post-Modernism was considered to have a large following in society, and it would appear that the New Age Movement was included in this grouping. Second, Individualism was perceived as a force to be reckoned with, with feminists perceived as belonging here. Fundamentalism was the third challenge: Christian fundamentalism in the West and Islamic fundamentalism in the East. The programme concluded with questions: where are we going in society? What will happen to reason, tolerance and pluralism? Are we heading for a new dark age?
Reflecting on these things afterwards, I was struck by the thought that reference to a Christian culture in the past was entirely absent. For the past two centuries, Enlightenment ideals were considered to have dominated the intellectual climate in this country. The values held and the goals deemed desirable were interpreted as fruits of the Enlightenment. This analysis contrasted with one which I am more accustomed to: that the Christian world view has had an immense influence on our intellectual and social development. My personal conviction is that we live in a post-Christian culture, where values, attitudes and even vocabulary owes a debt to Christianity, but the foundations are gone. Others might argue that we are still in a Christian culture, with a state religion and a monarch declaring allegiance to the Christian Faith. What a contrast to these views was the position taken in the radio programme!
Whilst the presenter of the programme overstated the case to some extent, Christians should be wary of rejecting the thesis out of hand. We know that the Enlightenment philosophers elevated reason and rationality into an exclusive system: rationalism. As a consequence, they rejected all ideas of knowledge coming through revelation - which made them oppose the foundations of Christianity. They could not accept Christian doctrine as truth - because it did not come via logical reasoning. If rationalism (and its siblings: naturalism and scientism) has been dominant in the intellectual life of our culture over two centuries, we should expect to see some of the fruits: a deep hostility to all sources of revelation and a commitment to truth coming only through reason, logic and human endeavour.
The Enlightenment approach has cultivated the idea that the academic disciplines are working towards `objective' truth. It has also been said that these disciplines exhibit `neutrality': so that scholars from different cultures can work collectively and progress without introducing dogma, traditions or prejudice. The problem is that scholars who operate on the principles of rationalism can only be objective and neutral within the boundaries of their system. The system itself is far from objective and neutral - because it rejects God's word about himself, about ourselves, about the world we live in, about morality, etc. There is a growing recognition among Christians that all is not well in the scholarly world, neither is it well in the education of our youth. An excellent introductory book contributing to the debate about education is Curriculum unmasked by Mark Roques (Monarch Publications). Chapter 2 would have provided a stimulating input to the radio programme: it is entitled `Idolatry, Enlightenment and the spirit of culture in the 1980s', and that chapter is suggested as helpful further reading to this article. The Enlightenment philosophy is alive and influential in the intellectual affairs of our community: there are fruits of the Enlightenment which are causing great damage to successive generations of young people.
This helps us to recognise a hidden agenda in the way evolution by natural selection became widely accepted in the decades after Darwin published his book. Most people will now admit that the arguments Darwin presented were not sufficient to prove the theory - but it still won over the scholarly world. These people were all committed (whether consciously or unconsciously) to the Enlightenment approach to truth: by the exclusive use of human reason. Since human reason can never be used to `prove God', to `prove an intelligent Designer', it followed inevitably that none of these concepts could be accepted. Although supernatural creation was rejected as an option, the need to understand origins did not go away! Creation had to take place according to natural processes that we can reason about - and Darwinism was the only theory which offered an intellectually satisfying explanation of origins. It became the `creation myth' of the Enlightenment.
A further line of thought raised by the programme concerned the source of human values. The presenters were very appreciative of the benefits of reason, tolerance and pluralism - seeing them as fruits of the Enlightenment. But if people change their beliefs, where are they going to get their values, and what will they be? Are we heading for a new dark age of prejudice, bigotry and the irrational?
I ask: is it true that the Enlightenment has given us reason, tolerance and pluralism? How far has Christianity promoted these values? Let us consider them in turn. Reason is God-given and an aspect of us imaging our Creator. Christians have suffered for conscience sake for two thousand years - and toleration in this country is linked historically with the persecution of godly, peaceable nonconformists. Pluralism means different things to different people - but the Christian spirit of loving our neighbours and praying for those who do not know God has much to do with the way our community has developed over hundreds of years. Did these values come via the Enlightenment? Biblical revelation does not by-pass our rationality - but it is nevertheless rejected. Tolerance is only for positions that are acceptable - there is no toleration for the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ on our lives, our minds and our hearts. Similarly, lip service is given to pluralism, but in the real world we find suspicion and division in society because feelings of security in a mixed community are bound up with human control, not God's sovereign government.
Where will values come from? Away from the Lord, there is no solid foundation. The challenges to the Enlightenment demonstrate the diversity of values that must emerge. How do Christians react? They are one of the challenges. Christians who accept the Bible as God's complete and accurate written revelation are fundamentalists, and are seen as irrational dogmatists. Their challenge to Enlightenment principles is not a retreat to the dark ages - but it is a step nearer to New Testament times when the Apostle Paul proclaimed the wisdom of God to the Greek philosophers!
David J. Tyler (1995)
