In chapter 4, Hergenhahn discusses the transition from pre- modern to modern scientific thought. The Renaissance, which lasted from about 1450-1600, marked this transition period (p.80). In this time period the Europeans shifted their scientific thought away from God and more toward humankind (p.80). One of the major themes of this period was the idea of humanism. Humanism represents a strong interest in human beings (p.80). Dr. J. pointed out that these Renaissance thinkers were not turning away from God, but rather turning away from the dogmatic religious practices which were typical of the time. I can see why these early scientists would be pushed to turn away from such religious dogma, especially if it stood in the way of scientific progress. It seems to me that using God as an explanation is really no explanation at all. Even today when science cannot explain a certain phenomena, people will say, "it was God's will". However, who is to say that science will not find a concrete explanation for these phenomena in the future? It seems that people cannot accept unanswered questions and using God as an explanation is quite convenient.
Dr. J. emphasized the fact that the Renaissance was not a movement to eliminate religion. These people wanted religion to be more personal and less formal (p.80). They wanted a religion which was not imposed by the church hierarchy. However, as Dr. J. pointed out, according to Swedenborg every religion dies. Every religion dies because sooner or later evil people will infiltrate the system and use the church to gain power for themselves. The original purpose of the church becomes lost in the greed for power. All the rituals and dogma that such a church has are just motions, they are not truly serving God. Dr. J. pointed out that the true intent of religion is to stop evil and not dogma and ritual. This is an idea which related to my term paper. I feel it was the dogma and ritual of religion made it seem very unappealing to me. To me all the dogma and rituals just made the religion seem to be a large contradiction. I always wondered how it was that God was so loving and yet could allow such evils to occur? I have found many answers since then, but I still wonder. A more personal religion which the Renaissance thinkers were striving for is what I feel I am looking for also.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) started the Reformation which was the move away from the Catholic church. Luther was much against the various practices which the church did at the time (p.82). For example he was against the practice of retribution though payment to church officials. He felt that only God was able to determine sin and how sin was to be treated (p.82). And as Dr. J. pointed out in lecture, Luther was also against the church designating certain individuals as "saints". Were these people "saints" just because the Pope said so? Luther felt that such ideas and practices would be the end of Christianity. Not surprisingly, Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church and his ideas grew into Protestantism. However, in accordance to the writings of Swedenborg, even Protestantism would eventually be engulfed by the evils of dogma and rituals which it originally fought against. However Dr. J. points out that we should not condemn religion because of church dogma. Ne says that we should realize that religion is a conscious relation to God, not dogma. This is a problem which I had. I did "condemn" religion due to church dogma. I think that many people feel this way about religion, because they look at religion and church dogma as one and the same. Martin Luther obviously could differentiate between the two, and he set out against the powerful Catholic Church to set things right.
Descartes was a man who was very unsatisfied with the thinking of his time. He was especially unsatisfied with philosophical thought. He felt that philosophers had been around for centuries and yet they had not found anything which was beyond doubt (p.95). Descartes wanted concrete answers to questions. He wanted explanations other than God. Dr J. pointed out that religion and science are not opposites. He points out that if God is real and science is the search for truth, then they are indeed related. It is unfortunate that many people assume that the two are polar opposites. Many unnecessary disputes occur between religion and science. Perhaps more would be accomplished if the two joined forces.
Hergenhahn points out that Descartes received his education in the school of Scholasticism (p.94). Scholasticism was the search for "revealed truths" which came from the bible. The Church was very involved in Scholasticism. According to Dr. J., the Church said that revelation was the only source of truth. But as Dr.J. also pointed out the church did not differentiate between natural and spiritual truths. The bible should be a source of spiritual truths but not natural truths (lecture 4/27/93). For example, the Church would take Genesis in the bible literally and therefore would say that this was natural truth. But as Dr J. would suggest, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are not to be taken literally. He suggests that these chapters are actually talking about the development of the mind. The bible has only spiritual truths not natural truths. There is history in the bible but this is not revelationr Dr. J. also offers an explanation on why God did not explain how the world was created. If He had done so then we as humans would have no choice but to believe in His existence. But God's love is based on freedom therefore he offered no concrete evidence that he created the universe. It is our choice to believe or not. This line of thought makes sense. But I wonder how God could actually describe how the universe was created. Surely this would be beyond our comprehension. I feel that there is no way for God to "prove" his existence. This is because I feel that we can only comprehend our material universe, and even that is hard to understand. And a supernatural being such as God would be beyond our grasp.
We have seen that the Renaissance was basically a movement away from the Church. It was not a turning away from God but rather a turning away from the church. Martin Luther and Rene Descartes were two important figures of the time. They both were against the dogma and the ritual of the Catholic Church. It is ironic that the Protestant movement which Luther started would become stained by the very evils it fought against. It seems that no organized religion will ever be a true religion. As long as there are power-hungry people and people who are "lost", this decline of religion will always occur. The "personal religion" which the Renaissance supported seems to be the way to go. Another plus in a "personal religion" is the absence of power-craved tele- evangelists trying to rid you of your life savings.
Back to Book Index