The way that this is described by Ronald Brown in his lectures is a rather common way of looking at the western world’s secularization process. The radical form is the form that is presented as the take home midterm. The lectures detail the humanities side of how the west was secularized. They deal with the old thought and show the transition to the new thought and why that transition took place. The lectures start by outlining the three ways that one can look at the earth: Mythologically, Rational/Aesthetically, and Empirical/Mechanistically. These three views outline the total dynamic that the secular world can be interpreted by. I believe that the most widely accepted belief is the rational/aesthetic way of looking at the world. This perspective of the world most commonly reflects what a majority of people believe. Also I feel that this belief just so happens to be the exact opposite to what the “secu

“Secular progressiveness” is a very simple idea that may appear complex. From what I understand, the advancements in science and technology had lead to the discoveries that events in the world happen for a reason. Nothing happens by some random force. The reason the world works is by physics and science, not because that is just the way it is, as previously thought. There is a reason for everything. That is what the lectures were hinting at. Yes, there is a reason for everything, but the lectures still try to let you believe that there is still a divine supernatural entity or force that controls things that are unexplained. As stated in the take home midterm sheet, “As the knowledge gained in science is applied to other sectors of society the culture tends to grow more secular.” This is completely true; as society begins unveiling the truths about the things they believed were supernatural the belief in the supernatural begins to fade. This fading of belief is what sets secularization ablaze. It is the fuel for the secularization fire. Without this fading belief there is no way that a secular world would come to be. If we as a society were not interested in why events occur, why the planets move, and tings of the sort the world would be one big religious mess. As seen in the past when the church gets too much power the greed of mankind takes over.

Imagine, the current world being run by a church. Imagine that if you were of different religious thought than the “ruling country” that you resided in and were ostracized from that country. Imagine a world that was not secular and was run by spiritual thought and moral. The world would be a very hard place to live in. There would be violence and much turmoil. Society would not have progressed to the level that it is at now. The “secular progressiveness” is essential for “societal progressiveness.” The two go hand in hand. In order for a society to flourish personal beliefs and ideas must be put on the back burner. There must be a collective unity that holds the people together.

It wasn’t until men like Plato and his protégé Aristotle started questioning the validity of these forces and supernatural beings. Both men agreed that there was probably a greater being, a God, who was the creator, but they also had some differences. Aristotle dealt more with a cosmological way of approaching the thought. He doubted the proposal that the world was created by a divine craftsman rather he said that it was eternal and “matter and form have always been together.” This

Some topics in this essay:
Baron D’Holbach, Rational/Aesthetically Empirical/Mechanistically, Martin Luther, Ronald Brown, , Gravity Newton, God Newton, Universal Gravitation”, “secular progressiveness”, Isaac Newton, scientific revolution, dismiss idea god, collective unity, looking world, world created, home midterm, church power, secular world, fading belief, dismiss idea, secularization western world,