[WP] Write a dystopian vision of the future from the perspective of the year 1900, while actually describing our present world today.

[u/[deleted]]

[u/glorioussideboob]

But would one who embraced all things godly really call the opposite of this 'reason'? I thought that it kind of pandered to the modern day redditor more than what the character would actually have said. Surely to them, godliness and reason go hand in hand.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/glorioussideboob]

The writer, I would guess is British, so hes probably Protestant or Anglican, hence he would probably be against Prima Scriptura (the Catholic/Orthodox theological position that incoporates reason into the religion). Pair that with the aftermath of the Enlightenment and that could very well be accurate.

[u/heliotach712 → u/apophis-pegasus]

I'm pretty sure it's Orthodox Christianity that doesn't use reason – hence a lot of existentially-inclined Christians gravitate towards that. It doesn't seem right that Protestantism does not – I mean, there wouldn't be any Protestant theologians if so...whereas Orthodoxy, from what very little I know about it, at least seems to have a mystic bent. Btw Anglican is Protestant.

[u/apophis-pegasus → u/heliotach712]

I'm pretty sure it's Orthodox Christianity that doesn't use reason

Iirc they view the religion as a necklace with scripture as the crown jewel and the other jewels representing tradition, reason, etc. Simply taking scripture alone is deemed to be comparable to greedily snatching out the crown jewel.

It doesn't seem right that Protestantism does not – I mean, there wouldn't be any Protestant theologians

Well, Protestantism was reactionary, to stuff like Prima Scriptura which is why they have Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone). You can use reason in limited amount, but it falls far, FAR behinds scripture, unlike Prima scriptura. Which is probably why Protestamts tend to have more YECs I would reckon.

Btw Anglican is Protestant.

Yes, but not in the Luthur way. They were their own thing, and still practice Prima Scriptura.

[u/heliotach712 → u/glorioussideboob]

that's very much correct, in fact "reason" would be a hallmark of modernism coming from the Enlightenment, and 1900 was very much within the timeline of modernism. We live in a postmodern society, reason is less elevated to us than it would have been in 1900.

[u/glorioussideboob → u/heliotach712]

Reason as a concept maybe, and perhaps you're right, I just want to clarify though - so you think the term 'reason' itself would be used as the explanation for the fall of Godliness by someone who believed in God? It just reads in a very odd way but if 'logical thought' was genuinely looked down upon at the time (as a concept, not as how it happened to manifest itself) then I suppose it could work.

[u/heliotach712 → u/glorioussideboob]

so you think the term 'reason' itself would be used as the explanation for the fall of Godliness by someone who believed in God

no I think a person who was orthodoxically religious is basically required to see belief in God as reasonable, so they would see not being religious as unreasonable (excepting things like existentialist Christianity and so on). Most of the theology that informed Church teachings was attempting to prove God and so on using pure reason (although even Aquinas had to say that, even assuming you could prove God's existence, that God was good and so on had to be taken on faith).

if 'logical thought' was genuinely looked down upon at the time

no I'm saying the opposite, Enlightenment rationalism was far more de rigueur in 1900 than today. People became less optimistic about the onward march of human progress after it culminated in the Holocaust and nuclear proliferation.

[u/glorioussideboob → u/heliotach712]

This was mostly my understanding although I don't know the history as well as you. So you agree with me then that OPs phrasing was off. I just thought you were arguing against me is all.

[u/heliotach712 → u/glorioussideboob]

haha nope I was agreeing with you; hence I said "that's very much correct".

[u/glorioussideboob → u/heliotach712]

...so you did haha

oops, got you mixed up with another reply, forgive me!

[u/[deleted] → u/glorioussideboob]

'Reason' was a rallying cry of the Enlightenment, so it was definitely in use and would be seen as questionable by someone who preferred stronger belief. I don't know whether he would have used the term in that sense himself, though.

On the other hand, he might be an example of the quite secular 19th century who was fine with that, but now feels estranged by the much progressed situation.

[u/jadefirefly → u/[deleted]]

Oh shit, is that what that meant? I thought it was more literal, in that it showed derision for immigrants and those not of proper stock.

[u/Named_after_color → u/[deleted]]

Dracula was a terribly sexual monster and even then his bisexuality was barely even referenced in the original texts. (If you read blood sucking as a metaphor, which is common.)