movement in america. all right, welcome everyone like we were talking about last class. we are now shifting a little bit into a conversation and all, right welcome everyone. like we were talking about last class, we are now shifting a little bit into a conversation and discussion about some of these, i would say, these essential themes of 18th century america. we spent the last, what's, couple months talking about these regions and how the colonies developed. how those colonies became integrated into the mercantile empire, the british empire, the cultural empire. today, we want to start with our first major theme. we want to talk a little bit about intellectual history

today and this movement in 18th century america. really, it begins in late 17th century america. but this movement known as the in light tournament. when you think about the enlightenment, what kind of things come to mind? >> benjamin franklin. >> why benjamin franklin? >> with the, kind of like, the freedom, liberty. when we talk about liberalism in that sense, john locke as well, the freedoms that come with it. >> so, certainly, we'll talk about this in the next couple class periods. certainly, the enlightenment is about politics in some ways. natural rights. we will get back to this. good, what else comes to mind? the enlightenment. by the way, is in the class when you are in high school taking history, we're talking about the enlightenment today? but i guess when your eyes glaze over. and there's nothing exciting here. caleb? >> reason?

>> reason, how many have heard the enlightenment referred to as the age of reason? we'll come back to that. anyone else? what kind of figures do you think about when you think about the enlightenment to the 18th century? we heard about franklin, we heard about locke. any other names hit you? >> jefferson. >> good, thomas jefferson in america. often known as a man of the enlightenment. >> voltaire? >> good, we have these frenchmen. rousseau, walter. there is this guy diderot who wrote the encyclopedia. anyone else? those are the big ones. all of those names, we could add david hume to the list. bunch of others we could add if we wanted to make a long list of the most important figures of

the enlightenment. most of those figures we learned about in school when we learned about the enlightenment are part of what's historians call behind enlightenment. what i mean by the high enlightenment is that these are kind of intellectuals that usually surround themselves around power, they have patronage. their patrons are the kings and the queens, the monarchs. they tend to live very different lives from normal people. there intellectuals, their thinkers. and that's what they do, that is their calling, their vocation. to write, to think and so forth. their hands aren't dirty, in other words. these are the great thinkers of the age, so to speak, the high enlightenment. usually, it's associated with france. the philosophical as are called, philip in trans. there's a scottish indictment -- usually understood in its european

context. would i want to suggest today and over the course of the next two classes is that the indictment in america, in the american colonies in the 18th century, looks very different from the high enlightenment of the 18th century in europe. we just have a bunch of people sitting around and coffee shops talking about ideas and reading. did you hear the latest piece by rousseau today? yes, passed me the decaf. very different in america. so, let's think about the enlightenment in america this way. some of you have had me for the u.s. survey class, have been there where and i've done this. but not everybody had me for that class. raise your hand, how many of you want to make a better life for yourself? how many of you want

to improve your life? yeah, every hand in the room goes up, right? you're in college! you know? that's why you're sitting here. i'm guessing most of you want to get a college degree because you want to prove your life, you want self improvement, you want to better your life. some of you, if you are a first generation college student, you may want to pursue a life that your parents or your grandparents didn't have. college degree, kind of thing. in some ways, if you raise your hand, and all of you did, i would suggest that you then have been more influenced by that fundamentals of the american enlightenment then you realize. now, usually when i bring this up to students, they will say or maybe some of you are assuming, everyone wants to improve themselves, right? from the beginning of time, right? if you're a human being, you want to improve your life, you want to strive and make something, you want to rise.

you want to be ambitious and become something. get a good job or make more money than your parents did or something like that. but what if i was to suggest to you that the idea of wanting to improve yourself is actually a relatively new thing in human history? right? this idea of wanting to improve your life or improve society suggests that, number one, it's possible. in other words, think about new england puritans for a minute. you are not so stained and depraved from your skin nature that you can't rise above it and make something of yourself. you are not stuck in some type of a conservative caste system in which your blood line determines whether or not he will be successful or

not. if you reject that idea, you have drunk deeply from the well, if you will, of the enlightenment. imagine like a medieval peasant, okay, how does a medieval president, just take a guess, spend his or her day? if you've studied medieval history. jack? right or behind a >> working in the fields. >> working in the fields, right! dylan, you want to add to that? >> i was going to say the same thing. >> usually on a plow or behind a horse. plowing, sewing, reaping, agricultural stuff! right? no medieval peasant, an 18 to 22-year-old medieval

peasant, is out there in the field saying i may be on the field now, but one day my kids are going to go to college. you know? they're going to become something. they're not going to be thinking that. they're probably thinking i've got to get the feel done. if i think about anything other than their work, they're probably thinking about where am i going to go when i die. how do i get right with god? it's a completely different world view. but the idea that now improvement as possible, that one can actually change the world -- and it's gets to your point, caleb -- by exercising reason, it's a new thing. it's not something that has been a defining marker of human history for tens of thousands and thousands of years. it emerges right in this moment. and again, it's a transatlantic idea. so, it emerges from the highlight

meant in france and so forth. but in the colonies, this idea of the enlightenment is always connected with this idea of improvement. i want to talk about that here in a second. what i want to do today is i want to introduce some of the central tenants of the enlightenment in america. then, over the course of the next couple days, will dig even deeper into that. so, out today, i really want to wrestle with this at more of a 30,000 foot level. what is the enlightenment? and what does the indictment look like in america? in the colonies? the british, american colonies. everybody clear where we're headed today? i want to leave you with for essential ideas. today, about the indictment.

the first one we've already kind of covered, but i want to refine it a little bit more. first, the enlightenment is about self improvement. progress. if you believe and progress, if you believe that you, individually, can improve yourself or that society can progress, you're in the enlightenment camp. again, think about this in the context of the 18th century, the idea that you can overcome the limits of the world. what are some limits that are placed on peoples lives in the 18th century? or even in the 17th century? what's limits people? >> well. >> how does wealth limit you? i would think wealth would allow you to do things other people can't do. >> lack of wealth. >> lack of wealth, okay. poverty or not having money, right, could place a

limit on you. certainly, there were many that we call and colonial america the lower sort. who are limited by lack of money and lack of opportunity as a result of not having money. but other limits are placed on your life? jackson? >> the religion that you practice. >> how does religion serve as a limit? >> if you're living, say, in puritan new england and you are, say, a catholic, you would have no chance to do anything. >> yeah, good luck, yeah. or messiah university is a question university, many of you if not all of you are christians. does your christian faith place any limits on your life? if you're going to say i'm a christian, is that going to place any limits on you? of course it will, right? now, you might want to go committed all terry, right? and you can do it! you're free to do it! but hopefully, as a christian, you might say i don't think that's a good idea because of the scripture, church tradition or whatever, it says that that's wrong. what do you mean i can't

commit adultery, i'm free! right? yeah, technically you are going to go to jail for it. but christiane eddy has placed a limit on you if you are serious about your faith. religion becomes a limit. the very notion of the puritan idea of total depravity, the calvinist 80, a is a limit. because that such here so to pray that you can't rise above that. for calvinists, what's the only way you can improve your life and rise above the limits? >> [inaudible] >> yes, but, while you're living. you're right, nick, dying is -- but while you're living? go ahead, andrew. >> rescue you from yourself. >> saved, if you're christian god to lift you above the second. but only god can do that. you don't have

the human potential to do that in puritan calvinism, right? because your whale is broken and sinful that there's nothing you can do apart from god helping you, that's with a puritans believe. the enlightenment will challenge that notion and say that you are sinful nature has not broken you to such an extent that you can't rise above it through exercise of reason, through hard work, through individual effort. right? this is a new thing. in the history of the world. that we haven't seen before, progress. so, an enlightenment must always be understood, when we talk about it in terms of self improvement, must always be understood in the context of what it is challenging. and it's challenging and older, christian, protestant and catholic, worldview. of what

it's possible for human beings. now, let me illustrate this one more way. in a christian worldview, say, the middle ages. with the puritans. where is history moving? where's history ultimately going to end, what direction is it going? where is the ultimate, we use this word t loss, where is the end of christian --? >> rapture? >> let's be more specific, what is it? >> -- >> the return of jesus, the return of god will come and ended all. that's kind of the christian, what we call, teleology. that's why it's moving. eastern orthodox, catholic, protestant, they all believe that history is

ultimately moving towards god wrapping it up. we call this, theologically, we call it eschatology. the end of times, when god will bring an end to his creation. right? the indictment has a completely different understanding of human history and the way history is moving, right? because if progress is the ultimate goal of human history, history is ultimately moving towards the overcoming of all limits. right? if we just apply reason, if we just apply our minds, educate ourselves, learn new things, knowledge, gain new knowledge. in the enlightenment, knowledge is not fixed. see what i mean by fixed olives? if you live in the middle ages, where do you find a knowledge? >> bible. >> the bible, or the church. so, there is only a

certain amount of knowledge that's contained in a book or official church teachings. but the indictment suggests that knowledge is progressive, you can always apply reason and come up with new knowledge through experimentation. through more thinking. right? so, ultimately, history in an enlightenment perspective is moving towards the overcoming of all limits through the application of reason. this is what we mean by improvement. if you apply yourself and apply your education, your rational ability, you can rise above whatever weakness you have because your poor or because you are born a certain way or so forth. so, in the enlightenment idea, the history kind of has no and ultimately.

in its purest form, i should say. ultimately, we're going to reach some sort of utopia where all limits will be overcome. all disease, all unethical things. we will even cheat death. as long as we apply, reason we will find out a way to cheat death. that is a teleology of the enlightenment, that is a way history is moving. when you hear people say you are on the right or wrong side of history, usually what they're saying is if you don't believe in progress will be on the wrong side of history. right? we can get into that today, but i don't want to delve -- we get into that another time, i do want to delve into that. so, the enlightenment is about self improvement. one more point i want to make about this before i go to the next slide. the enlightenment is often described as a very

individualistic effort. if you apply reason, you will improve. right? if you get educated, if you get a degree or study something for a particular time, you will improve your life. you will gain knowledge and so forth, and that's true. but one of the things that's really interesting about the enlightenment, we see some of this in europe to, but in america is the enlightenment in america is often cultivated in communities. so, you have, later on we'll talk about, it next class, we'll talk about benjamin franklin's junto. some of you were at my convocation address that i gave months ago, i talked about the junto, right? this group of ordinary tradesmen. what was ben franklin's trade? he was a printer, right? you think of benjamin franklin's seated in continental congress but when benjamin franklin came home

from work every day he had ink all over his hands. right? he had to clean up. he was a tradesmen, he was a worker. he would gather with a bunch of other artisans like blacksmiths and carpenters and so forth, they met once a week in this club called the junto and it would be described as a club for moral mutual improvement. there is no better enlightenment definitions of that, a clever mutual improvement. they get together and i read a text together and someone would present a paper that they wrote and they debate it and so forth. but you see this over and over again, that the enlightenment is both an individual effort but the enlightenment, improvement, self improvement always comes within some kind of community as well., so, there is my first premise of the enlightenment. the enlightenment is about self improvement. the second, this one's a little more complex. enlightened people, people who are enlightened, we'e able to employ reason as a necessary

check to the individual passions. when you think about check, what do you think about, that word, check? >> checks and balances -- >> yeah, good, checks and balances. why do you need checks and balances? because, if one branch of government, if their passions run wild, they need to be controlled and checked by another branch of government. right? so, here, we're suggesting that reason needs to be checked, or reason needs to check the passions. if you were in college in the 18th century, if you are a student at one of the 18th century colleges, and there weren't many, yale or harvard, kings college which later becomes columbia, the college of philadelphia which later becomes the university of

pennsylvania, william & mary was around then. and probably missing one or two here, can not remember. in your senior year, you would take a class with the college president, usually a minister. and the class would be titled moral philosophy, which essentially would be ethics. moral philosophy. and there would be a unit in that class on the discipline of faculty psychology. faculty psychology. basically, in that unit, you would study that human faculties. now, one of the things you would learn about in that class if you are taking it, you're a senior at a college and you're getting educated, so you'd be in a very small minority of the population. you would learn that there are two dominant passions, two dominant faculties. anyone know what

they are? take a guess from looking at the screen. whatever the two dominant faculties that all humans possess according to this 18th century faculty psychology, dylan? >> reason. >> reason and passion. you are born with one of these faculties and you have to cultivate the other one. which one are you born with? passion! think about a baby. a baby doesn't, if a baby has to go to the bathroom or diaper changed or needs food, the baby is not making any rational choice. like moms busy, now i'll come back to her later or something. there is no reason involved, the baby starts to cry because its reasonable faculty has not been cultivated yet. so, what you would learn in this class is that the point of being an educated person it's to make sure that you train your rational faculty so that it is

strong enough to put down, usually they're described as, the unruly passions. so, in some ways, your reason, your rational faculty, it's like a muscle. think about lifting weights, right? you want to build that muscle and make it stronger and stronger so when passions arise that are going to get you into trouble, unruly passions, you can rationally think this through and temper them. control them. i often use this illustration, you ever talk to someone that is dating someone or something that they know it's just a bad relationship. and they're like, but i love them, i'm in love. what do you mean? this is just a terrible relationship for you. if you are thinking clearly, you would know this is a bad, abusive, whatever relationship. but it's so, we've been together so long.

one is the passions. your friend is exercising reason and he's telling you to exercise reason, right? that this is bad. if you are an educated person, your rational capacity, your rational faculty, it's going to be strong enough to suppress as urges. that's why we need educated people, the founding fathers in the 18th century colonial enlightenment people, that's why they believed we need educated people. you need somebody to tell the people who are storming the capital on january 6th but that's a bad idea, control your passions, if they were here today that's what they would say. right? control yourself. so, the whole idea was you want to be an enlightened person and that's

you have to educate yourself to do that. you have to train that muscle. there's always this war going on in the human psyche, the indictment teachers would say, this professor would say to you in the 18th century. and remember, these are all religious colleges to at this point at least. so, the passions, where are they going to lead you? religiously, if your question, say. where are the passions going to take you if they get two out of control? towards in, right? so, there is even something christian about training your rational faculty because you can realize this is not a good idea, what i'm doing right now. but of course, if you never were educated, if your rational faculty is not built up, the 18th century indictment thinkers would say, this professor would say in your class, you're just going to do stupid things. you're going to go off and be followed by your passions and they're

going to lead you into bad places. so, there is a moral component to this. that's why you're studying this, by the way, in moral philosophy, in an ethics class. if you are living in the 18th century and you are part of one of these colleges. questions on that? anyone clear on the second point? so, self improvement. and they all build off each other, right? self improvement also has everything to do with reason. educating oneself, controlling the passions. because that is what's true improvement is. third -- they're getting even more where he now. to be enlightened, one needs to direct their passions, we've defined with those are, away

from parochial concerns and toward a universal love of the human race. what do i mean when i say parochial concerns? what do you think about when you hear parochial concerns? what does the word parochial mean? i'll test you s. a. t. vocabulary knowledge. asa? >> kind of more individualized it? like your individual things that pertain to you. >> yeah, parochial, people who are parochial tend to be naturally kind of selfish or narcissistic. this is my world and i don't want to see anything beyond it, right? parochial. good, anyone else want to take a stab at that, parochial? focused on your own kind >> narrow in their understanding. >> yeah, it kind of narrow, limited. you're not

seeing the bigger picture. you're just focused on your own kind of identity or your own issues. you don't see your issues as part of something bigger than yourself, right? that's the idea. one of the things i failed to say earlier, when we think about the enlightenment, we're really thinking about the philosophy or modern life. maternity, as we often describe it. modern life. it's this idea that enlightenment people always appeal, when they're making an appeal, whether be a political appeal, religious appeal, whatever it may be, something cultural. they are always appealing to universal principles that all human beings share. this gets to your point, earlier, alexis, about locke and writes. if a person

it's consistent, and we haven't even touched the idea yet about how consistent people are about these enlightenment ideas. because they were really consistent, then we would have a very different world of the 18th century, particularly when it comes to things like slavery and injustice and so forth. so, we're talking up here, right? next couple classes, we're going to break this down to see how this actually looks on the ground. if these enlightenment thinkers are consistent, if the modern project is consistent. but locke said we are all into out of natural rights, by a creator, that's jefferson, right with natural rights. we all have them! by the virtue of the fact that we're human beings. we all have rights. so, when you make an appeal, you appeal to things that everyone holds in common. not the things that make people different. so, someone who is embracing a kind of

enlightenment brand of politics, say, today, would appeal not to a particular i tended identity group. a particular racial group or a particular religious group or, you know, something else. particular class. they would appeal to say we need to come together as a human race. and thus, we're going to have differences. but we need to build a society around what makes us the same. right? so, that's what i mean by we need to move away, the lineman says -- sometimes are described as local attachments. the things that make us unique from other, people they are fine. but in order to advance society and improve society, we all need to come on board with the things that make us the same. so, these are universal appeals to

rights, we all have rights. and to the degree that you're not respecting everybody's rights and that society, that's the degree to which your indictment principles are feeling. if you believe in the enlightenment that you don't give rise to a certain group of people in your society, don't talk to me about the enlightenment because you're not consistently applying as what the 18th century thinkers would say. i think the indictment would reject, again, we're not here to judge it for, we're just trying to understand, it right? the indictment would reject kind of and identity sort of politics. or a way in which people understand themselves based on a particular race or gender or class or religion and they would want to think about whatever one has in common.

universal love of the human race. universal level of one particular part of the human race but this is why tom paine, in the american revolution, if you remember reading common sense in another class, this is why he talks about himself as a citizen of the world. i'm not a citizen of a nation, a town, a community, some local, parochial place, i'm a citizen of the world. because i line myself with the human cause.. next couple days, we'll think

about some of that critiques of this. but this is the idea. questions on that? we have one more to go, at this point we are starting to see how the enlightenment is a little bit more relevant to your life. the just a bunch of elite, white guys sitting around in a coffee shop in paris. who are being controlled by being funded. these are issues, self improvement, reason over passion, whether or not our identity should be rooted in a parochial understanding, or a universal understanding. these are all issues that we are debating today, this is the, suddenly the enlightenment, maternity becomes much more relevant to us. i'm not saying you have to agree with it or disagree, but see perhaps how much these ideas have influenced you, and how these ideas again, are relatively new. last point i want to talk

about here and that is, the enlightenment in america, always existed in conversation and compromise with the deeply held christian faith of the american people. now, we have talked about three different colonial societies so far, british colonial regions, right? probably not the best exercise to do, but it might be helpful right now, try to rank them in terms of the role that religion played in the development of the society. what would be the least religious of the three societies we have looked at so far? >> virginia? >> virginia. make an argument for that. >> they were anglican, there wasn't really any established churches, nobody really practiced the faith. >> that is

somewhat stereotypical but i see where you are going, there was an established church, people did go, but at the same time though, you are right. do you want to add to that, nolan? >> they wanted to focus on commerce and making money. >> i think the larger fox is not religion, i think you are correct. virginia, the chesapeake is one kind of religion that is there, but it's not absolutely essential to the ethos, the culture of the colony. what would you say is second? >> [inaudible] >> make a case. >> the fact that there was more religious freedom made it so that religion was less universally shared part of the culture, it was your own religion,

individual, rather than a shared cultural experience that everybody had. similarly to virginia, i think there was a bigger focus on commerce and trade. >> the motivations for why william confounded it, there was this economic motivation, economic liberal motivation to make money, and as well as to celebrate religion but in all of diversity, not one dominant kind of church. and then that leaves us with what? >> new england. >> in which you have a state church, puritanism, it's a deeply calvinist, religious society. but i think in all three regions, i think we find, deeply embedded in the mindset of the settlers is some kind of sensibility. religious sensibility. even in virginia, you have people going to church, the anglican church is important to them. they give their money to the anglican church, it's a state church,

and the mid-atlantic, religion becomes important in the way that it can be freely practice. of course new england, it saturates the landscape. the point is, there is naturally going to be, in kind of the way we think about the enlightenment and high enlightenment, there is naturally going to be a tension between religion and the enlightenment, and the reason. so if you were to take the enlightenment to its logical conclusion, in terms of religious belief, forget about colonies for a second, but if you were to take the enlightenment to its logical

conclusion, where would you be religiously? dylan? >> you would probably be landing on people who improve themselves and are morally good without the price. >> okay, where would you end up? how would i categorize that religion? if you didn't hear him, he said you can improve your life without any kind of christian faith or price or god. so if you took that to its logical conclusion, where would you end up? humanism or, what? atheism. is everything is reason, and everything can only be explained by reason, i guess you could try to apply a reason to prove the existence of god but ultimately, christianity and all other religions do have

a certain dimension of faith to them. belief. which tends to be a very irrational idea. miracles, miracles are an irrational idea, you realize that? the idea that a supernatural being can come into your life, your town, and do something that violates the laws of reason and science, that's irrational, not an enlightenment thing. but there are millions of people all around the world, especially in the united states today, but there were tens of thousands of people in colonial america who believed they can improve themselves, they wanted to get educated. they want to control their passions. they wanted to be citizens of the world. and they believed in miracles. right? and they believed god answered prayer. and they believed got interjected. they believed in god, period. so one of the things that i want to do next class is i want to break this down even further. i want to sort of think about the

degrees to which these religious sensibilities either accept or reject the idea of the enlightenment,, so let's take an example, you are living in massachusetts and in the 18th century there is an earthquake. and if you are living in a pre-enlightenment world, how would you interpret an earthquake? what would be your response? >> maybe god has done something to punish us. >> okay. god is displeased. we are not fulfilling the covenant, we are not sustaining the city on a hill, people are becoming visible saints, god is punishing us by making the ground quake and destroying

buildings. is that an enlightenment way of understanding an earthquake? no. after the enlightenment, how much you understand that earthquake, let's say it happened in 1700, in 1750 when the enlightenment had a more profound effect on new england culture, how would you understand the earthquake? how might an enlightenment thinker or scientist understand, to make sense of why this earthquake happened? none of you are geologists, that's why you are being so quiet, take a stab at it, what might you have to figure? >> maybe you go to the scene afterwards and try to examine the ground, i don't know if they have any idea of seismic activity at that point.

>> you'd pull the 18th century equivalent of the rector scale out, you measure the ground, you do scientific experiments, you say this earthquake happened because of these geological reasons. right? a very rational way of thinking about it, now does this mean that the earthquake didn't happen because god, again, thinking as an 18th century puritan, does that mean the earthquake didn't happen because god is punishing us? it could be both. right? in other words, you have this idea that still, god brings natural disasters to punish us. and, you are going to try to understand the earthquake in terms of science. this is what

i mean when i say, you can't pull the enlightenment, this is what life is like on the ground. you can't pull the enlightenment or science historically. you could do it, but in the 18th century, people did not, they did not pull the enlightenment out of their religious world views. now the enlightenment could criticize the world views. but ultimately, most people access the enlightenment alongside of their religious worldview. so back to the 24th century, i'm guessing all of you are christians, some of, you but if you are, you probably are because you came to messiah, you probably believe that god answers your prayers or god is present, or providential, you believe somehow god is active in the world. but when i asked you if you wanted to improve yourself you all raise your hand. it means, you have the

ability, to improve yourself. some of you might say, the only reason i do is because god helps me. but the very fact that you want to study something suggests that, that you want to make something of yourself, suggests that you can do it. maybe you separate that part of your life from even christiane 80, right? you get agitated, educated and you are a question on sundays. this is what i mean when i talk about the enlightenment in 18th century is always working alongside of the worldview. it does not destroy the world view of the question people. it does not undermine it. but it works alongside of it. you might say, you can critique that and say, well, this is not rational. how could you believe in science and believe in god. that's not our goal. our goal is to try to

understand the 18th century question. >> you say that this is kind of the beginning of the foundation of the separation of church and state, because they can coexist but they shouldn't necessarily intermingle. >> is this the beginning of the separation of church and state? you don't usually think of it that way but if you are a person of enlightenment, you believe that the state is ultimately a secular entity. because the state government is built not upon the divine right of kings, in other words government is not built on god, it's not built on, god created america as a christian nation, or something like that. government is based on, what's? alexis, what did you say at the beginning of class? what is government based on? >> your own individual rights, liberalism. >> natural rights. if you read the declaration of independence, there is nothing

in that or the constitution about your god, maybe your rights come from god but ultimately build your society, not upon theology, or the teachings of the church. you don't have a state church, right? you have a society built on enlightenment principles. john locke's natural rights. those rights might have come from god, but you build your society on these universal principles. religion then, in some ways it's an irrational category, not completely, but in some ways, that the two should not mix. or that be enlightenment in all its power of natural rights government, should not limit the right of people to worship and get in their face, and tell them how they should conduct their spiritual lives. the separation

of church and state is, in many ways, a kind of enlightenment idea. because the united states is one of the first nations that had anything like that, the colonies, the colonies are not separations of church and state. other questions? nolan. >> wasn't the idea of deism very popular? >> we are wrapping up here but that's what i want to start class on, on monday. i want to think about, what are all the options one could have when you integrate the enlightenment and religion? what do those options look like? if you are adidas, you believe that god created but doesn't allow any kind of supernatural activity after that. that is pretty heavy

leaning to which side? the enlightenment. if you are one of these people who say, i believe we need to check that richter scale on that earthquake, but it's really god. i understand why that happened, but the real reason is because god is punishing us. you might be on the other side of that enlightenment christiane eddy nexus. but the enlightenment is still happening in conversation with spiritual, religious things, there's not much religion left with deism. there is still a lot left with york quake example. the goal here today is to get us started, we will spend two more class periods on the enlightenment and we will dig in on what this looks like in the ground. but these are the big principles that we will

be operating on and operating weight as we start to think about the enlightenment and as it develops in america, and what that eventually looks like. okay? good. see you next friday.