Reality and Morality

[Derideo_Te]

obedience to science

 

[BlackSand]

I absolutely 100% support your right to believe in whatever you want and to waste your life as you see fit.

I am 100% sure I don't need your support to believe or accomplish anything ... Especially if it includes success in life.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I absolutely 100% support your right to believe in whatever you want and to waste your life as you see fit.

I am 100% sure I don't need your support to believe or accomplish anything ... Especially if it includes success in life.

.

Instead you will rely upon the "support" of an imaginary sky fairy.

 

[BlackSand]

Instead you will rely upon the "support" of an imaginary sky fairy.

I don't rely on support from God or Sky Fairies ... Which is probably why you don't ever make much sense at all. Nothing for you to attack unless independence, self-sustainability, worthwhile compassion and upward true progress are your enemies.

Sorry if you or anything you have to offer are simply non-consequential to my survival.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Instead you will rely upon the "support" of an imaginary sky fairy.

I don't rely on support from God or Sky Fairies ... Which is probably why you don't ever make much sense at all. Nothing for you to attack unless independence, self-sustainability, worthwhile compassion and upward true progress are your enemies.

Sorry if you or anything you have to offer are simply non-consequential to my survival.

.

So your sky fairy doesn't get any credit at all for your personal success but you expect it to "reward" you just for believing in it while you were alive?

 

[BlackSand]

So your sky fairy doesn't get any credit at all for your personal success but you expect it to "reward" you just for believing in it while you were alive?

I don't have any sky fairies ... Never have suggested there are any sky fairies. I never suggested I need to rewarded by anyone or anything... I have found the reward comes when you do the right things and as a result of your success. When you are tired of living in Hell ... You might want to try something that is a least marginally more productive. But hey ... That is your choice, let's see what you can do.

If your activity here at USMB is any indication or reflection of what you can do and what you support ... Then I am proud to say I think it doesn't amount to much ... Troll On!

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So your sky fairy doesn't get any credit at all for your personal success but you expect it to "reward" you just for believing in it while you were alive?

I don't have any sky fairies ... Never have suggested there are any sky fairies. I never suggested I need to rewarded by anyone or anything... I have found the reward comes when you do the right things and as a result of your success. When you are tired of living in Hell ... You might want to try something that is a least marginally more productive. But hey ... That is your choice, let's see what you can do.

If your activity here at USMB is any indication or reflection of what you can do and what you support ... Then I am proud to say I think it doesn't amount to much ... Troll On!

.

So all you have is an ad hom instead of any substance to support your position on Pascal's Wager?

I am going to take your petty little hissyfit as a tacit admission that you are incapable of engaging in an adult debate on the merits of Pascal's Wager. Have a nice day.

 

[BlackSand]

So all you have is an ad hom instead of any substance to support your position on Pascal's Wager?

I am going to take your petty little hissyfit as a tacit admission that you are incapable of engaging in an adult debate on the merits of Pascal's Wager. Have a nice day.

Yo Peanut ... Go back and read Pascal's Wager so you have a clue what you are talking about ... Or continue to stumble around in the dark trolling along. You wouldn't know an adult debate if it slapped you up side the head ... And prove that fact regularly.




Hint:
I stated I liked Pascal's Wager ... Not that I take it as Gospel.
The sooner you can figure out you have no business trying to apply your ignorant little models to me ... You may come to the realization why it is you have nothing to offer ... And I am not missing your contribution of anything worthwhile to discuss.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So all you have is an ad hom instead of any substance to support your position on Pascal's Wager?

I am going to take your petty little hissyfit as a tacit admission that you are incapable of engaging in an adult debate on the merits of Pascal's Wager. Have a nice day.

Yo Peanut ... Go back and read Pascal's Wager so you have a clue what you are talking about ... Or continue to stumble around in the dark trolling along. You wouldn't know an adult debate if it slapped you up side the head ... And prove that fact regularly.




Hint:
I stated I liked Pascal's Wager ... Not that I take it as Gospel.
The sooner you can figure out you have no business trying to apply your ignorant little models to me ... You may come to the realization why it is you have nothing to offer ... And I am not missing your contribution of anything worthwhile to discuss.

.

Thank you for once again tacitly admitting that you are incapable of engaging in an adult debate. Have a nice day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

obedience to science

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

 

[Hollie]

obedience to science

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Your first mistake is actually trying to form coherent sentences without the benefit of cut and paste "quotes".

Leave the science to those with knowledge, dear.

Run along now to the pages of Harun Yahya. Scoot!

 

[Derideo_Te]

obedience to science

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia.

That you are so desperate as to even attempt to conflate them exposes that you have zero substance for this thread. Even your bible supports euthanasia.

2 Samuel 1 9-10 Then Saul said to me Please come here... NCV - Online Bible Study

9 "Then Saul said to me, 'Please come here and kill me. I am badly hurt and am almost dead already.' 10 "So I went over and killed him. He had been hurt so badly I knew he couldn't live.

 

[PoliticalChic]

obedience to science

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Your first mistake is actually trying to form coherent sentences without the benefit of cut and paste "quotes".

Leave the science to those with knowledge, dear.

Run along now to the pages of Harun Yahya. Scoot!

Another vapid post from the liar.

Every single time, actually forming a cogent response is beyond your meager ability.

 

[Derideo_Te]

obedience to science

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Your first mistake is actually trying to form coherent sentences without the benefit of cut and paste "quotes".

Leave the science to those with knowledge, dear.

Run along now to the pages of Harun Yahya. Scoot!

Another vapid post from the liar.

Every single time, actually forming a cogent response is beyond your meager ability.

Ironic!

 

[PoliticalChic]

obedience to science

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia.

That you are so desperate as to even attempt to conflate them exposes that you have zero substance for this thread. Even your bible supports euthanasia.

2 Samuel 1 9-10 Then Saul said to me Please come here... NCV - Online Bible Study

9 "Then Saul said to me, 'Please come here and kill me. I am badly hurt and am almost dead already.' 10 "So I went over and killed him. He had been hurt so badly I knew he couldn't live.

"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."

This is the second time in one short thread that you have proven to be a moron.


Here....let's see if learning is even possible for you:

"Euthanasia, Medical Science, and the Road to Genocide

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

....the concept of managed care, cost containment, and rationing threatens to eradicate the ethics of Hippocrates in medical practice, with the physician less beholden to his individual patient than to the managed care entity which employs him or pays his salary."
Euthanasia Medical Science and the Road to Genocide


I must ask once again....why do you advertise your stupidity??
Masochism???

 

[Derideo_Te]

obedience to science

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia.

That you are so desperate as to even attempt to conflate them exposes that you have zero substance for this thread. Even your bible supports euthanasia.

2 Samuel 1 9-10 Then Saul said to me Please come here... NCV - Online Bible Study

9 "Then Saul said to me, 'Please come here and kill me. I am badly hurt and am almost dead already.' 10 "So I went over and killed him. He had been hurt so badly I knew he couldn't live.

"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."

This is the second time in one short thread that you have proven to be a moron.


Here....let's see if learning is even possible for you:

"Euthanasia, Medical Science, and the Road to Genocide

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

....the concept of managed care, cost containment, and rationing threatens to eradicate the ethics of Hippocrates in medical practice, with the physician less beholden to his individual patient than to the managed care entity which employs him or pays his salary."
Euthanasia Medical Science and the Road to Genocide


I must ask once again....why do you advertise your stupidity??
Masochism???

Irony squared from the OP!

Euthanasia has been around long before science, PoliticalSpice. That you are now trying to conflate it with the ACA means that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Instead you just post your usual puerile insults in order to bolster your fragile ego but that just makes me laugh all the harder at your expense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

obedience to science

Not only is it a mistake to believe that the two, science and morality, can be separated, but it is actually dangerous....Science, which is based on materialism, requires the guidance and restrictions of the world of 'qualities' or it goes off into directions that are deadly.



4. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients. Would they do so based on their whim?

1. 1. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

1. 1. Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland? [Berlinski]

5. Science can tell us what we can do....but not what we should do. But even those who have used science have seen the advantage of applying the guidelines, restrictions, certain "qualities".... e.g., banning mustard gas, or restricting nuclear weapons.

Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia.

That you are so desperate as to even attempt to conflate them exposes that you have zero substance for this thread. Even your bible supports euthanasia.

2 Samuel 1 9-10 Then Saul said to me Please come here... NCV - Online Bible Study

9 "Then Saul said to me, 'Please come here and kill me. I am badly hurt and am almost dead already.' 10 "So I went over and killed him. He had been hurt so badly I knew he couldn't live.

"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."

This is the second time in one short thread that you have proven to be a moron.


Here....let's see if learning is even possible for you:

"Euthanasia, Medical Science, and the Road to Genocide

Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D.

....the concept of managed care, cost containment, and rationing threatens to eradicate the ethics of Hippocrates in medical practice, with the physician less beholden to his individual patient than to the managed care entity which employs him or pays his salary."
Euthanasia Medical Science and the Road to Genocide


I must ask once again....why do you advertise your stupidity??
Masochism???

Irony squared from the OP!

Euthanasia has been around long before science, PoliticalSpice. That you are now trying to conflate it with the ACA means that you have nothing of substance to offer.

Instead you just post your usual puerile insults in order to bolster your fragile ego but that just makes me laugh all the harder at your expense.

So....you're trying to run away from what you wrote...this:
"Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia."


Put you foot in your mouth again, huh?




I suppose you missed the name of the journal mentioned...

“The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.”
Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

But how stupid must one be to claim "Science has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with euthanasia" when it is physicians carrying out euthenasia....with or without permission.


Be honest....you publish such stupid posts in the vain hope of getting the attention of one you consider an icon......me.

I had a professor once who referred to folks like you as follows,,,"she sticks to me like manure to a wet blanket."
Appropriate, eh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The Enlightenment raised questions about exactly what ‘truth’ is.

As the enlightenment was about science and reason, it answered that question via same:
Classical physics suggests a world of matter in motion: atoms bumping around in the void. And, carried forward, the ‘Queen of the Sciences’ determined that the only things said to be real were mass, velocity, and, by extension, those things that could be quantified and described in mathematical formulas. Such are referred to as ‘quantities.’




2. Sensations such as color, sound, texture, taste, and smell were called ‘qualities,’ and considered not quite real in the same way: rather, they are said to be subjective effects produced by atoms impinging on our senses. Qualities, then, were considered less susceptible to being mathematically weighed, counted, or measured.
a subset of that category Included moral ideas, values, purpose, love, or beauty. They are merely illusions produced by the human mind.




3. The Industrial Revolution invested ‘quantities’ with import, significance, over ‘qualities.’ The central motivation of this transition of society was to harness technological power to satisfy purely material wants; there is a ruthlessness and power of the machine that fosters the idea of a universe governed by inexorable mechanical forces rather than one of biblical genesis.

a. The mechanistic worldview, therefore, is essentially a substitute religion.

b. One can see the attraction this had for the physicist, and those desirous to share their acclaim! On the one hand, it absolved one of the need to consider or obey anything not within their discipline, and on the other, everything not so contained, mathematically, was demoted to merely a creation of the human imagination, the mind.

c. Materialism: those things that could be measured. Covered in "Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning," by Nancy Pearcey, chapter seven.




There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I think this is a misunderstanding of the real value of the Enlightenment. For centuries knowledge had over focused on the Divine and on spiritual world. That combined with a scholastic tendency to allegorisation had resulted in a world view that was out of touch with the natural world and our basic humanity. In the Christian world in which the Enlightenment occurred this had resulted in artificialities in the culture of worship as Christ's humanity was neglected in favour of His Divinity. The Enlightenment was therefore a rebalancing of perspective that allowed a revolution in understanding of our humanity - medicine and the natural world. Most of the major benefits came in the centuries until the1960s in the Developed world since when the rebalancing has shifted to a new and distorted scientific materialism that represents a reduction of human beings to the merely natural and a loss of transcendence.

I would describe happiness in terms of that peace that comes from being reconciled to the heart of reality which is in God and with the circumstances of the natural world in which one finds oneself.

It is therefore simplistic to say either / or and the answer is more on the lines of both / and!

"I think this is a misunderstanding of the real value of the Enlightenment."

You've gone askew.

There was not a reference to the 'value' of the Enlightenment.
It was mentioned to point out that there was an overreaction to the Enlightenment.

Science and reason should not have thrown out the influence of religion from the public domain.

The major disaster, as follows:

"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century. "
French Revolution - Robespierre and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror

 

[Mindlight]

1. The Enlightenment raised questions about exactly what ‘truth’ is.

As the enlightenment was about science and reason, it answered that question via same:
Classical physics suggests a world of matter in motion: atoms bumping around in the void. And, carried forward, the ‘Queen of the Sciences’ determined that the only things said to be real were mass, velocity, and, by extension, those things that could be quantified and described in mathematical formulas. Such are referred to as ‘quantities.’




2. Sensations such as color, sound, texture, taste, and smell were called ‘qualities,’ and considered not quite real in the same way: rather, they are said to be subjective effects produced by atoms impinging on our senses. Qualities, then, were considered less susceptible to being mathematically weighed, counted, or measured.
a subset of that category Included moral ideas, values, purpose, love, or beauty. They are merely illusions produced by the human mind.




3. The Industrial Revolution invested ‘quantities’ with import, significance, over ‘qualities.’ The central motivation of this transition of society was to harness technological power to satisfy purely material wants; there is a ruthlessness and power of the machine that fosters the idea of a universe governed by inexorable mechanical forces rather than one of biblical genesis.

a. The mechanistic worldview, therefore, is essentially a substitute religion.

b. One can see the attraction this had for the physicist, and those desirous to share their acclaim! On the one hand, it absolved one of the need to consider or obey anything not within their discipline, and on the other, everything not so contained, mathematically, was demoted to merely a creation of the human imagination, the mind.

c. Materialism: those things that could be measured. Covered in "Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning," by Nancy Pearcey, chapter seven.




There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I think this is a misunderstanding of the real value of the Enlightenment. For centuries knowledge had over focused on the Divine and on spiritual world. That combined with a scholastic tendency to allegorisation had resulted in a world view that was out of touch with the natural world and our basic humanity. In the Christian world in which the Enlightenment occurred this had resulted in artificialities in the culture of worship as Christ's humanity was neglected in favour of His Divinity. The Enlightenment was therefore a rebalancing of perspective that allowed a revolution in understanding of our humanity - medicine and the natural world. Most of the major benefits came in the centuries until the1960s in the Developed world since when the rebalancing has shifted to a new and distorted scientific materialism that represents a reduction of human beings to the merely natural and a loss of transcendence.

I would describe happiness in terms of that peace that comes from being reconciled to the heart of reality which is in God and with the circumstances of the natural world in which one finds oneself.

It is therefore simplistic to say either / or and the answer is more on the lines of both / and!

"I think this is a misunderstanding of the real value of the Enlightenment."

You've gone askew.

There was not a reference to the 'value' of the Enlightenment.
It was mentioned to point out that there was an overreaction to the Enlightenment.

Science and reason should not have thrown out the influence of religion from the public domain.

The major disaster, as follows:

"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century. "
French Revolution - Robespierre and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror

Ok i do appear to have misread your intent and I apologise for that. And yes the loss of religion in the public domain is as large a reason for concern as were the falsities of medieval scholasticism that the Enlightenment overthrew. Without religion there is no solid foundation for morals as has been demonstrated in various failed atheistic regimes from Revolutionary France , to the Soviet Union and on.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. The Enlightenment raised questions about exactly what ‘truth’ is.

As the enlightenment was about science and reason, it answered that question via same:
Classical physics suggests a world of matter in motion: atoms bumping around in the void. And, carried forward, the ‘Queen of the Sciences’ determined that the only things said to be real were mass, velocity, and, by extension, those things that could be quantified and described in mathematical formulas. Such are referred to as ‘quantities.’




2. Sensations such as color, sound, texture, taste, and smell were called ‘qualities,’ and considered not quite real in the same way: rather, they are said to be subjective effects produced by atoms impinging on our senses. Qualities, then, were considered less susceptible to being mathematically weighed, counted, or measured.
a subset of that category Included moral ideas, values, purpose, love, or beauty. They are merely illusions produced by the human mind.




3. The Industrial Revolution invested ‘quantities’ with import, significance, over ‘qualities.’ The central motivation of this transition of society was to harness technological power to satisfy purely material wants; there is a ruthlessness and power of the machine that fosters the idea of a universe governed by inexorable mechanical forces rather than one of biblical genesis.

a. The mechanistic worldview, therefore, is essentially a substitute religion.

b. One can see the attraction this had for the physicist, and those desirous to share their acclaim! On the one hand, it absolved one of the need to consider or obey anything not within their discipline, and on the other, everything not so contained, mathematically, was demoted to merely a creation of the human imagination, the mind.

c. Materialism: those things that could be measured. Covered in "Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning," by Nancy Pearcey, chapter seven.




There is a question that should logically follow the recognition of the above dichotomy...and that is the question of ....let's call it happiness, or satisfaction with one's life: an obedience to science, or to that quality called morality, or religion.

Or....is happiness really not important?

I think this is a misunderstanding of the real value of the Enlightenment. For centuries knowledge had over focused on the Divine and on spiritual world. That combined with a scholastic tendency to allegorisation had resulted in a world view that was out of touch with the natural world and our basic humanity. In the Christian world in which the Enlightenment occurred this had resulted in artificialities in the culture of worship as Christ's humanity was neglected in favour of His Divinity. The Enlightenment was therefore a rebalancing of perspective that allowed a revolution in understanding of our humanity - medicine and the natural world. Most of the major benefits came in the centuries until the1960s in the Developed world since when the rebalancing has shifted to a new and distorted scientific materialism that represents a reduction of human beings to the merely natural and a loss of transcendence.

I would describe happiness in terms of that peace that comes from being reconciled to the heart of reality which is in God and with the circumstances of the natural world in which one finds oneself.

It is therefore simplistic to say either / or and the answer is more on the lines of both / and!

"I think this is a misunderstanding of the real value of the Enlightenment."

You've gone askew.

There was not a reference to the 'value' of the Enlightenment.
It was mentioned to point out that there was an overreaction to the Enlightenment.

Science and reason should not have thrown out the influence of religion from the public domain.

The major disaster, as follows:

"If the French revolution was the end of monarchy and aristocratic privilege and the emergence of the common man and democratic rights, it was also the beginnings of modern totalitarian government and large-scale executions of "enemies of the People" by impersonal government entities (Robespierre's "Committee of Public Safety"). This legacy would not reach its fullest bloom until the tragic arrival of the German Nazis and Soviet and Chinese communists of the 20th century. "
French Revolution - Robespierre and the Legacy of the Reign of Terror

And, Mindlight, let's point out that all of those mentioned.....the French Revolution, Nazism, the communism of Stalin and Mao.....

...all, obligatory atheists.