The spectacular fall of YEC beliefs

The entire group that created the Constitution realized the dangers in joining the church to the state. Calvin gave a great example in Geneva. [citation required]Wikipedia:

quote:

---

The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centred on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state.[4][5] In France, the central doctrines of the Enlightenment philosophers were individual liberty and religious tolerance, in opposition to an absolute monarchy and the fixed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The Enlightenment was marked by an emphasis on the scientific method and reductionism, along with increased questioning of religious orthodoxyan attitude captured by the phrase Sapere aude, "Dare to know".[6]

​

...

​

The Age of Enlightenment was preceded by and closely associated with the scientific revolution.[8] Earlier philosophers whose work influenced the Enlightenment included Bacon, Descartes, Locke, and Spinoza.[9] The major figures of the Enlightenment included Beccaria, Diderot, Hume, Kant, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Adam Smith, and Voltaire. Some European rulers, including Catherine II of Russia, Joseph II of Austria and Frederick II of Prussia, tried to apply Enlightenment thought on religious and political tolerance, which became known as enlightened absolutism.[10] Benjamin Franklin visited Europe repeatedly and contributed actively to the scientific and political debates there and brought the newest ideas back to Philadelphia. Thomas Jefferson closely followed European ideas and later incorporated some of the ideals of the Enlightenment into the Declaration of Independence (1776). One of his peers, James Madison, incorporated these ideals into the United States Constitution during its framing in 1787.[11]

---

(emphasis added)

This is not about joining church and state, meaning having a state church, this is about preserving the philosophical foundations of the country. Putting God in the Constitution as was done in the Declaration of Independence would not be joining church and state but it would be declaring the essential Christian nature of the nation. Well, the few Deist rounders who dominated in the Constitutional framing betrayed the country despite their having been so soaked in Christian doctrine themselves they couldn't keep it out. All the Chrsitian influence has been getting redefined and expunged from our national life over the last half century or so, it can be felt in the deterioration of the moral life of the people and especially our leaders, we're sliding downhill rapidly and will soon be joining Europe in total pagan darkness in which witchcraft will once again be the religion.

You're mistaking Christians - ie people - with Christianity - ie religion. I'm a Christian; I just happen to be an atheistic one. It was people that 'inspired' the enlightement, not religion. Left to its own devices religion would prevent the seaarch for knowledge and did so for centuries. But you know this. Humanism is fine. You may have noticed that no one here has ever expressed a desire for witchcraft, paganism or tribalism. In fact quite the opposite if you cared anything about actual truth.So never left your state then. How about town?

You're bonkers. Stark staring bonkers.

Yep, it would be declaring the essential Christian nature of the nation. Since the framers deliberately did not declare the essential Christian nature of the nation there is no such essential Christian nature. That's a good thing.Calvin's Geneva. Waiting for support for that claim.It'll never come.'Cuz it's false.

Actually the best of the Enlightenment was inspired by a fear of Christianity so you can say that the example of Christianity inspired the separation from it's threat.

I don't know where you are based in the UK exactly but 10% doesn't seem unexpected to me. About 4-5% of the population is Muslim and they are overwhelmingly Creationist - even the ones that 'aren't really' creationist would be unlikely to say they weren't.I think it's reasonable however, to look to the US as a 'soft target' - somewhere where attitudes are more amenable to change. But as there numbers decrease, it becomes increasingly difficult to remain in that bubble. It looks like acceptance of evolution is slowly creeping southwards. The evidence suggests young people are less likely to reject evolution than old people, so the bubble enforcement seems to weakening.

To be honest, although I was born and raised a traditional Christian in an overwhelmingly Christian community the stuff I hear you Americans talking about never ever came up. Evolution was universally taught and young earth was never ever raised. Maybe that's an English Christain thing. Sure, it's easier go from 40% to 30% than from 10% to 0%. And it's great to see it happening. What's surprising is how late you guys are. It's inevitable - I hope.

The first time, I let it slide as I assume you were talking to the 'crowd' - but I am definitely not an American. I'd go further and say it's easier to go from 40% to 30% than it is to go from 90% to 80%

A lot of the Enlightenment was protesting Roman Catholicism, rightly so in my opinion, and the Protetant Reformation did contribute to the best of the Enlightenment. John Locke, for instance, was mentored by John Owen, one of the greatest of the Puritan thinkers. Granted there were many influences involved, but some powerful ones were definitely from a Christian worldview. If the supernatural roots of Christianity hadn't been purged it would not have degenerated into the paganism we're now sliding toward.

It probably won't come not because it's false but because it's in books I've read, and even those books aren't currently available to me now.

Say what? It probably won't come... because it's in the books you've read? Your sentence makes zero sense.

Yet you have never been able to show any evidence of paganism or that there is any issue with paganism or that the First Amendment was not intended to make sure that the Puritan nutjobs could only threaten their own gullible members.

That's what you got? A guy referenced John Locke?If a Puritan thinker referenced Locke, that was the Enlightenment influencing Christians. The opposite of what you claimed. And a pretty minor influence.Got any examples of Christians significantly affecting or influencing the Enlightenment other than as a bad example to be avoided?

Yeah, that's really convincing. Rock solid evidence that you think some people wrote stuff somewhere that would support your claim.