Sep 29, 2022 Last Updated 2:13 AM, Oct 19, 2021
Hits: 1505 times


Age of Reason, reasoning amidst social reality


What is the age of reason? The age of reason was born, when people realized that explaining life, occurrences and natural phenomena could be based on sense, science ad evidence. Reasoning is therefor a condition loose from belief, doctrines and unfounded dogma.

European politics, philosophy, science and communications were radically reoriented during the 18th century and before (1685-1815) as part of a movement referred to by its participants as the Age of Reason, or simply the Enlightenment.

In our modern world, it seems that everything, from business to transportation, is progressing at an ever-accelerating pace. The Human Intelligence Knows No Bounds

What is social reality? Social reality is the condition we live in today, and if documented correctly, the condition and circumstances people lived before. Correct documentation requires evidence-based literature, and not made up stories, like we can find in religious books.

Yet: "The social reality as an expression deals with people’s opinions and beliefs of the present time."

Next to social reality we have the following: Personal reality (this can vary from very personal views on reality till self-determined realities over adapted realities); Shared objective reality (not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.)


The age of reason gave sense and universal explanation to life, occurrences and natural phenomena, standing above the different mythical explanations religions in different geographical locations gave.

One other crucial point the age of reason taught us, was that reasoning never came along with punishment, that even wrong reasoning the later rectification and correction of the mistake only resulted in growth and prosperity. Whilst religions aim was to punish the critics, either on earth through countless torture methods, be it physical or psychological, or through invented afterlife threats like hell or limbo, reason was able to admit mistakes and allowed critics and improvement.

Where religion criminalized all opposition and critique under hate crime and blasphemy laws, reason and science kept on walking and developing.

As the years went on social reality changed, and with it its methods.

In 1811 one could be prosecuted for criticizing Christianity under the blasphemy laws, whereas in 2018 one can be prosecuted under hate crime laws for promoting anti-Islamic views, on the same grounds and country. This is where social reality comes in. Social reality is the pool of different influences: The present development of a society, political presence and government, education and the religious / non-religious mindset of the people.

The current Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and police definition of a hate crime is: “Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s race or perceived race; religion or perceived religion; sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation; disability or perceived disability and any crime motivated

by hostility or prejudice against a person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender.”

At first glance this seems to make sense, without reasoning though. If we start to apply reason on the stage of development we are currently in, we can see something drastically wrong.

  1. The definition of hate crime does not include hate speech, so one can reason that it is not covered.
  2. This definition throws together natural and unnatural terms under the same offence. Whilst sexual orientation is natural, and can be observed in any society, under or with any religion and among any race or political system, religion is an unnatural construct that can be adapted, laid off, changed or mixed even. So how can criticizing, opposing or even verbally attacking (ridiculing) inventions be measured the same as discriminating a race, a gender or a sexual orientation?
  3. The final question is: Why is it a crime to criticize anyway, when on the other hand there is freedom of speech and expression?

The problem is that hate speech has no universal definition. The truth is hate speech to those that hate the truth. To suppress the truth spoken by others they then create the hate crime.

The attack on freedom of expression is inconsistent when it comes to religion. Criticism of Islam is considered to be more offensive than criticism of any other religions, even Judaism, which is astonishing, having laws against anti-Semitism. Islam has created its very own protections under hate speech, they call it Islamophobia. This is a term that was invented by Iranian fundamentalists to silence criticism of Islam. Any negative comments about Islam are usually met with this label, as an effortless way to shut down logical and reasoned arguments. This is particularly in social media, where criticism of Islam frequently results in users being banned.

And again, we can reason, because phobia is an unfounded fear towards something. We just need to view our history and observe the many lives religion has taken, destroyed or ruined.

Being able to criticize all religions is the basis of freedom of expression, especially in a secular society and amidst social reality. We should be free to mock, criticize and even ridicule religion, because it is neither racist, xenophobe nor a sexual discrimination.


The Age of Reason is a book written by Thomas Paine. He writes the following: “The most important position is the call for ‘free rational inquiry’ into all subjects, especially religion.” Christopher Hitches often cited Thomas Paine too.

Reasoning amidst social reality is something that needs to start at school level. Children are curious, yet also take for grated what their parents and teachers tell them. Sadly, religion is still taught in schools as if it were real, and not a historical period where people just didn’t know better.

As Atheists and Agnostics, we have the obligation to carry out reason, more than anybody. We cannot defend reason, and then follow or accept religious practices, just because we think it is a social obligation.

Social reality was extremely local in the past, and with that advantage, religion was able to control society, and give no further reason to reason. But with the new age explorers, the internet and the growth of knowledge through education, we have seen that the past social reality isn’t as real as they have sold it to us, ad that what is real is universal and what is not local.

The social reality is that we are diverse, naturally different. Our things in common are happily agreed upon, not through force, threat or punishment, and of course through natural realities.

Our social reality is yet also that we have been shaped and formed to fit, that we are told to be punished or doomed if we don’t believe certain things; and what is most sad, that even the ones that don’t believe still too often accept the belief system as social obligation to keep family, community or friendships in takt.

The truth is, there is no development without sacrifice, struggle or change; and the question is, if a loss can be an enrichment and for the better.

Yet when reasoning stops, or even just stays behind closed doors, humanity loses for the worse.


By Thomas Fleckner


Remarks: Speech was given at the 6th PATAS anniversary Feb 17, 2018


Comments powered by CComment