I admit I don't know much about this, right now I'm leaning towards this opinion but I want to hear more about it I could change my mind.
The enlightenment takes knowledge from the golden age (Islamic) and their methods of testing theories. Religion was still dominant in that time and people were still overzealous. The works were translated by Christians, naturally due to the orientalist hate, they would make the names Latin Averroes is ibn Sina etc.
The real problem was the Catholic Church, since it claimed divine right of scriptural interpretation. And any disagreement was treated as blasphemy and heresy, hence they suppressed people. That led to a clash at times, however it's influence diminished as states embraced knowledge. The Christians I mentioned would either do some work hoping to earn God's grace or for personal gain/status. Also, the want to understand the mechanics of the world created by God led to what one would call enlightenment.
It seems really arrogant when something good happens that people claim it as christian or whatever, there are plenty of good things about judeo christianity, and obviously it has had a huge impact on the world, like even tiny thingsl like christmas.
They also oppsed slavery at some point.
This isn't true, the early scholars of the enlightment and most of western Europe were Christians. There's a reason they claim it to be Christians, because those that embraced it didn't see it as a clash with religion or scripture. You have to remember man can have a fallible interpretation, in some cases for the purposes of control, while God is free from that. That is the primal doctrine of religions in general, so there was no real dilemma for the early Christian scientists or the religious ones of today.
But my personal issue with religion is that I'm scared if people who are religios gets into powerful or influential positions and all they care about is their own faith.
Like what if schools started to scrap the theory of evolution or the origins of the world because it doesn't fit with some religious peoples views on how the world was created.
That shouldn't be an issue since these things are theories. One theory isn't always taught as a fact or accepted as fact even if some assume it to be. Some could argue God is the source of the universe and then present arguments for it, just like some would for the theory of evolution.
Ultimately it is the person that will accept or reject.
What if people in power indirectly creates a theocracy because they think their main mission is to spread the word of God not anything else.
The same is possible with somebody wanted to spread evolutionary dogma. What if one decides to create a system where evolutionary principles and eugenics is emphasised? The risk always exists for whatever reason. We've had communists who tried to stamp out religion and commited mass genocides in Soviet union, then there's Maoist China. And now Xi's China they have concentration camps where around 3 million people are being held and brainwashed. Their kids taken from them, their women forced to sleep with Han Chinese men or marry their daughters off to the communist athiest party loyalists to wipe them out.
I think the only reason judeo chrisitanity has worked so well is BECAUSE it is so increadibly INTEGRATED into a society that has nothing to do with it.
Well yeah, over the centuries the traditons became part of everyday life. If you try to eliminage tradition you remove what holds and binds society together, while giving a value system (ethics, morality etc).
Normal people don't complain when they have to work on sundays even if they are christians.
The more religion is taken seriouslly the more we get to the times where the catholic churhc suppressed real science, or the dictatorships where women can't be outside in normal clothing.
The two are not connected supression of choice and inquiry is for purposes of control/keeping people beneath you. The concept of "normal clothing" isn't legitimate. What one society and culture views as normal, may not be viewed as normal by another. That's down to perspectives, cultural and historical norms.
EDIT I understand religions is super important to people and I don't think it should be destroyed like yanked out of everythin. But I also think even religious people themselves don't realize how little they actually follow their faith.
Some people are more hardcore and I don't think they seem like fit leaders because of that, people in the US like Mike Pence or that lady that is in charge of education now.
Those people take their faith super seriously and it's frightening for somoene like me, cus they seem more occupied with spreading the word of God than actual education and leadership.
Also thanks for not bashing me I was afraid someone would get really angry.
The problem is what your faith values are and how you take them and who from. Sadly some become overzealous and extremists, you have the old Catholic Church, women were trested like trash and blamed for all problems (witches) while men were excused for their acts. Then you have the modern day Evangelicals who are overzealous and want to usher in the Messiah by supporting the Jews taking over the Palestine. They also support bombings and killings even though they believe in not killing (a paradox). Then you have ISIS who want to bring in their version of the Caliphate, and they commit all sorts of crimes against muslims, non muslims and anybody who disagrees with them. When it was the early Caliphate (extremely religious people) that led to the golden age, while having mass populations of Jews and Christians there.
If you believe God is the source of the universe, the creator of all, then you would try and spread God's message. There wouldn't be a better source of leadership than that, and you would look for the wisdom. The problem then arises when you take part of the mesaage (that suits you) and ignore the rest.
I'll give you an example from the early muslim perspective (gave rise to the golden age), which seems to be lost today.
The first revelation(I'm condensing it) was read in the name of God, the one who taught many by the pen, he who taught man what he didn't know.
Adam (the father of mankind) and God's represtative (leader) on Earth is introduced in the Qur'an as one who was given knowledge by God. God distinguished him from all else by the quality of knowledge and chose to introduce him as such.
You could argue the acquisition of knowledge is mandatory for the children of Adam (humans).
And when the muslims fought their first battle the conditons of release of prisoners of war was a ransom or teaching 10 children to read and right. The reason for that was that reading and writing opened the doors to acquiring knowledge.
The point is where do you derive your teachings from, and how deeply one reflect on the teachings. How many muslims today would look at it this way, when the early pioneers did?
If they did they would embrace and maybe usher in a new golden age. They moved away and became materialistic, losing sight of education except to gain some coin. Religion served them good, yet the modern one's well they embraced God knows what.
NP man, there's no need for bash in civil discourse.
Also, I'm not typing up another wall of text.