Revolt Against Reason
Students Name
Institutional Affiliations
Revolt Against Reason
Edmund Burk was a useful and empirics person who contributed to the historical development of philosophical theories surrounding the connection of natural law and religion. The significant contribution was the work on a state of reason, which he claimed to be different from one’s state of mind (Stanlis, 2017). He rejected metaphysics and capitalized on useful, which was informed by his life experiences. He later becomes a renown conservative, especially his latest works in the 19th century. This paper aims to discuss the arguments surrounding intelligence, reverence, and natural science, how the three correlate.
The first argument concerns the statement that intelligence is dangerous because it undermines reverence. Reverence is the quality of according respect to someone e because of a position they are holding, often people of authority. These individuals are always revered because they contain some level of power and information which their followers require. Burks notes this to be what most of the political leaders utilize, especially in gaining favor from people. The point of lack of reverence sets in when the followers get to the same level as their leaders. The leaders won’t have anything that s desirable for the followers, and therefore, reverence end. It comes as a result of a change in the mindset of an individual, which Burk also states that it is different from reason.
Another item that factors in the works of Burk is the concept of natural science. This is what most of the scientist use in trying to explain the laws of nature. The advancements can be seen in modern-day science. When people are placed in a position where they can explain natural phenomena using science, then, the claims of a supreme creator who controls these things appears to be a fallacy. Berk, being a religious man, significantly discounted these claims by satirizing the works of metaphysics (Canavan, 2016). This is because of the developments that he saw in that the explanations of science are from the forces of nature, which were set by the creator that way. It tends to weaken the faint of the individual, mainly if their minds are influenced since it is prone to change, unlike reason which is constant according to an individual.
Burke also says that aby law can be suspended because there is a compulsion of extreme necessity and would serve the interest of the entire political community (Burke, 2019). This is often under the fact that a particular set of rules has been thought of and seen not necessary and therefore needs amendments. This seems to violate moral intuitions that have been developed in society. It gives people room for making changes and thus bringing about alteration sin believes that have been established over time. He backs his arguments on the facts surrounding revolutions which preceded the English history, wiping out some state norms which had been developed (Stanlis, 2018).
In conclusion, there is a significant opposing truth that exists between reason, nature, and religion. The exaltation of one will bring down the other. This is most likely when the parties research the different topics without considering the effect and impact it has on the other person. For example, those who study natural science would involve religious contributions at very minimal levels. It creates a whole complex set of opposing theories and ideas, which just further sparks more arguments.
References
Armitage, D., 2019. Edmund Burke and reason of state. Journal of the History of Ideas 61(4): 617-634. Retrieved from https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3373615/armitage_burke.pdf?sequence=2
Canavan, F. P. (2016). Edmund Burke’s Conception of the Role of Reason in Politics. The Journal of Politics, 21(1), 60-79.
Stanlis, P. (2018). Edmund Burke: The Enlightenment and revolution. Routledge.
Stanlis, P. (2017). Edmund Burke and the natural law. Routledge.