Edward Feser On Anthony Pagden's "Enlightenment"

I defer to Dr. Feser's analysis, because I haven't read Pagden's book, and because it appears that Pagden receives a suitable critiquing by the inimitable Ed Feser. I will provide a little background on the Enlightenment, though.

The Enlightenment was predicated on the premises that naturalistic education of the masses and the use of reason would result in the elimination of religion and the promotion of reason as the sole source of knowledge and morality. The French Encyclopedists under Diderot set forth a set of volumes containing "all the knowledge of man".

"The Encyclopedie was both a repository of information and a polemical arsenal. It was an idea of the editors that if civilization should by entirely destroyed, mankind might turn to their volumes to learn to reconstruct it. No other collection of general information so large and so useful was then in existence. Yet mere learning was not what lay nearest to the hearts of Diderot and his fellows; the prided themselves even more on the firm and bold philosophy of some of the writers. The metaphysics is founded chiefly on Locke, who “may be said to have created metaphysics as Newton created physics,” by reducing the science to “what in fact should be the experimental physics of the soul.” Beyond this there is little unity of opinion, though the same spirit rules throughout. It includes a prejudice in favor of democracy, as the ideal form of government, and the worship of theoretical equality, but contempt for the populace, “which discern”; the reduction of religion to sentiments of morality and benevolence, and great dislike for its minister, especially the religious orders. By its generous professions of philosophic tolerance, and apparent acquiescence in what for the moment it was too weak to overpower, the philosophic school won a hearing for doctrines which were essentially subversive of the established order of things in both Church and State, and prepared the way for overt revolution."(Note 1)
[Emphasis added]

And,

" Western Europe's worship of reason, reflected only vaguely in art and literature, was precisely expressed in a set of philosophic ideas known collectively as the Enlightenment. It was not originally a popular movement.

Catching on first among scientists, philosophers, and some theologians, it was then taken up by literary figures, who spread its message among the middle classes. Ultimately, it reached the common people in simplified terms associated with popular grievances.

The most fundamental concept of the Enlightenment were faith in nature and belief in human progress. Nature was seen as a complex of interacting laws governing the universe. The individual human being, as part of that system, was designed to act rationally. If free to exercise their reason, people were naturally good and would act to further the happiness of others. Accordingly, both human righteousness and happiness required freedom from needless restraints, such as many of those imposed by the state or the church. The Enlightenment's uncompromising hostility towards organized religion and established monarchy reflected a disdain for the past and an inclination to favor utopian reform schemes. Most of its thinkers believed passionately in human progress through education. They thought society would become perfect if people were free to use their reason."(Note 2)
[Emphasis Added]

With this brief background, and the knowledge that the new, unfettered and ungrounded thinking led directly to the French Revolution and the slaughter of the opponents by the "rationals" then in control. The ideals of "liberte, fraternite, egalite" were never achieved, since only two of the three were humanly possible at any given time: liberty and equalitarianism are never compatible, for example. Totalitarianism by clique reigned until Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself the new dictator.

Dr. Feser starts out with this analysis:

"For Pagden shows, albeit inadvertently, how little the rhetoric of Enlightenment owed—and owes today—to intellectual substance, and how much to attitude, posturing, and sheer bluff. The Enlightenment matters insofar it is perceived to matter. To a very great extent, what was true in it wasn’t new and what was new wasn’t true."

Because today's political turmoil seems related, even if obliquely, to the Enlightement fiasco, go ahead and read Feser's review for the full import. He concludes,

"But then, it seems that for Pagden, “Enlightenment” has nothing essentially to do with getting your facts right or being fair to opponents, at least if the opponents are religious. Nor does it really have much to do with reason (though it has a lot to do with chatting up reason). It is fitting that Pagden admires the British moral sentiment thinkers as much as he does, for sentiment is what he — and the Enlightenment itself, at the end of the day — are really about. Enlightenment is about having the right sensibilities, uttering the right shibboleths, and, perhaps above all, hating the right people. To be Enlightened is to be in love with the idea of being Enlightened, never to shut up about how wonderful it is to be Enlightened, never to stop insisting how very awful and unenlightened are those who don’t like the Enlightenment. It is about excluding those people from the ever-widening circle of inclusion, and keeping their ideas off the freethinker’s limitless menu of options. Critics of the Enlightenment have accused it of hypocrisy. Pagden’s attempt to defend it only confirms the accusation."
[emphasis added]

The Enlightenment promoted the idea that reason could and would produce morality, better morality, than Christianity; then it went directly into slaughter mode. The American revolution was tempered by the religious morals of the founders; the French revolution was unfettered by morals, period, a consequence of its Atheist foundations. One fan of the French revolution and its consequences was V.I.Lenin.

Notes:
Note 1: http://www.iep.utm.edu/encyclop/
Note 2: http://history-world.org/age_of_enlightenment.htm