America's Fifth Great Awakening

The Awakenings refer to periods of intense religious activity. I wasn't aware that a 4th Awakening had been recognized. Religious fundamentalism increased throughout the world in the 2nd half of the 20th century but I'm not sure that would be considered an Awakening in the sense that the first 3 were.

The 3 Awakenings had powerful impacts on religious groups but not necessarily on society as a whole. Considering that the earlier movements were religious trends rather than political, I find it very hard to call Trump's candidacy an Awakening. He's not a member of the clergy or known for his religious teachings. If you want to oppose him, fine, but I wouldn't try to couch it in terms that don't apply.

ehbacon said:

show previous quotes

brianlux said:

Just for a change, it would be great if we had an Awakening to the Three Basic Laws of Ecology:

1. The law of diversity – that the strength of an eco-system depends upon the diversity in it
2. The law of interdependence – that all those species are interdependent
3. The law of finite resources – that there is a gross limit carrying capacity.

That would gain us much more than yet another wave of myth fanaticism.

This has no correlation between societal function, as these laws refer to a community of interacting species. Since we are only talking about humans in the thread this post is completely irrelevant.


It's like saying "Fish benefit from being in water, so humans must also benefit from being in water."

show previous quotes

JimmyV said:

It's not 25% of the population. It's (roughly) 25% of the voters who have participated so far in this primary season. That is way, way less than 25% of the population.

ok now you're just nitpicking, if there is a significant change in the rest of the primaries, I owe you a coke.

I would argue that not connecting societal function with the basic laws of nature will be our undoing and thus what I said is highly relevant. But I'm also one of the few here who is biocentrist rather than an anthropocentric so it's no surprise to me to get slammed for my comment. Sorry you didn't like my post but I'm outta here anyway- this place is starting to get rancid (and that is not aimed at you specifically, ehbacon. Your posts are generally well thought out).

ehbacon said:

show previous quotes

brianlux said:

ehbacon said:

brianlux said:

Just for a change, it would be great if we had an Awakening to the Three Basic Laws of Ecology:

1. The law of diversity – that the strength of an eco-system depends upon the diversity in it
2. The law of interdependence – that all those species are interdependent
3. The law of finite resources – that there is a gross limit carrying capacity.

That would gain us much more than yet another wave of myth fanaticism.

This has no correlation between societal function, as these laws refer to a community of interacting species. Since we are only talking about humans in the thread this post is completely irrelevant.


It's like saying "Fish benefit from being in water, so humans must also benefit from being in water."

JimmyV said:

It's not 25% of the population. It's (roughly) 25% of the voters who have participated so far in this primary season. That is way, way less than 25% of the population.

ok now you're just nitpicking, if there is a significant change in the rest of the primaries, I owe you a coke.

I would argue that not connecting societal function with the basic laws of nature will be our undoing and thus what I said is highly relevant. But I'm also one of the few here who is biocentrist rather than an anthropocentric so it's no surprise to me to get slammed for my comment. Sorry you didn't like my post but I'm outta here anyway- this place is starting to get rancid (and that is not aimed at you specifically, ehbacon. Your posts are generally well thought out).

hey man, rancid is all I could have hoped for


My point there is that the very idea of considering people different species is the center of all the hate in this world, and we shouldn't be preaching that. I think that as one of the most advanced species in the world, we've evolved past some laws of nature. Not to discredit those laws at all though.

I actually think this assumption is the biggest mistake one can make. We have not evolved past the laws of nature. Man is inherently violent and has not been domesticated to the point where dialogue and understanding can fully achieve a wanted result. There are many who still adhere to backwards ideas and who will use violence to continue their way of life. Unfortunately these people will have to be met head on otherwise civilization as we know it will continue to descend into chaos. Our current way of life is not guaranteed by nature...disorder is the norm of man.

Maybe if it was Cruz or Rubio, but since religion is taking a back seat this go around, I doubt there will be a Great Awakening in the U.S.

PJ_Soul said:

What a cop out. Humans are perfectly capable of being peaceful and non-violent. Our intellectial capacity isnfar beyond what you are talking about. I think blaming nature on bad behaviour among humans is the worst excuse for assholery ever conceived in the history of excuses. Humankind CAN be peaceful and non-violent. It's just that many people CHOOSE not to be.

Now who is the science denier?

We're currently in the midst of a great awakening. A real awakening. Pope not able to tow the line any longer. Contraceptives are okay after all. Gays rights trump religious insecurities. Faithful loosing numbers. The book is taken a bit less literally every day. Oh yeah we are awakening. Major democratic contender admits to not believing g and he's in contention. Leading Republican obviously an atheist. Has never asked for forgiveness. Oh yeah. Finally a real awakening. Woot

ehbacon said:

as i said in the OP, there are 2 major Great Awakenings in US History, the 3rd and 4th weren't as extreme but you can google them if you would like.

I didn't say in OP that it would be just like the first two Awakenings, I said it would be a more modern version of it. Religion might not play a huge role in this one, but extreme conservatism sure will.

You're the one making the argument; you'll be a lot more convincing with specific information than just telling people to google. You cite Jonathan Edwards from the 1st Great Awakening but no one from the next two. I did some reading after looking at this thread and there isn't even a consensus that there was a 4th Awakening. However, if there was one, the events cited for it are still religious in nature.

Also, conservatism isn't necessarily what follows a religious movement. Things that grew out of the 2nd Great Awakening included the abolition of slavery and the women's suffrage movement. Social organizations like the YMCA and Salvation Army were founded as a result of the 3rd Awakening.

Trump's candidacy says all kinds of things about this society but the analogy with the Great Awakenings just doesn't hold up for me.

ehbacon said:

The Second Great Awakening led to improved moral reasoning against slavery, and had little to do with the Women's Suffrage Movement which wasn't really relevant until the late 19th century (aside from short stints every 50 years, each of which led to next to nothing.) The Third Great Awakening was a special one, right during the Progressive Movement. The Fourth Great Awakening was nothing major, that's why some don't even consider it an awakening.

Disagree. Many of the abolitionists were women and felt empowered by that movement to begin fighting for their own rights to own property, vote, and hold public office. The movement was active by the mid nineteenth century.

And if the 4th Great Awakening was no big deal, I'm curious as to why you count it. I came of age during that period (late 60s, early 70s) and there was plenty of social upheaval but in retrospect the only religious impact that's clear to me is the rise of fundamentalism in all religions, not just Christianity.