[Delta Airline Workers Reject Unionization]

The union cannot pursuade the workers to land on their collectivist runway.

Since there are no provisions to decertify the union if adopted, it is in the union's interest to keep flying this past the workers.

[Argument for the existence of God]

Jacob86,

21 pages under the heading of "Argument for the existence of God" - 'Please convince me that this is false (IF indeed it is)' does not imply agreement with a Primacy of Existence position.

Stating you wish to be 'convinced' of something as being false(if indeed it is, suggest you do not a firm conviction of this yourself), runs afoul of the onus of proof lie on the individual who asserts the 'existence of God', not on demonstrating that such is not the case.

Your desire to make the distinction of using Mom, Dad, Grandma, Grandpa, Uncle Joe, Aunt Mary, the cashier at the grocery store, the clerk at the gas station as the perceptual data you used to integrate the concept 'man' from - later deducing that your local minister, the police officer and the President of the United States of America are further examples of 'man' - and then posing a question that reeks of the aroma of "There is a claim that there are 6.5 billion instances of 'man' on the planet - does my concept of 'man' refer to only the 8 individuals that I used to form the concept and the few instances I've included since formulating it" is an attempt to grasp someone else's 'world view'?

I am not persuaded. Godspeed in your pursuit.

[Argument for the existence of God]

Do they refer only to the particular existents from which they are derived, or are they potentially referent to other existents. I am specifically speaking of the concept of logic here. Does "A is A" only refer to that which I have personally perceived or is it applicable to any and all potentially perceivable things?

Does "Man" only refer to the particular men whom I have perceived or does it refer to any and all entities which properly fit in that category (even the ones which I have not perceived)?

How is this different the the "problem of universals" Peikoff pointed out that Rand resolved on page 89 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand?

Is it also true when the numbers refer to the quantity of the same thing (i.e. 2 pencils and 2 pencils/ 2 entities and 2 entities/ 2a and 2a, etc...)?? And if yes, is this always the case or only when we perceive it to be so?

How is this different the the "problem of universals" Peikoff pointed out that Rand resolved on page 89 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand?

It seems like this answer is a re-wording of the second answer- that it is true regarding all which has been perceived (gathered from sense data), but that it is possibly not true about that which has not yet been perceived.

How is this different the the "problem of universals" Peikoff pointed out that Rand resolved on page 89 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand?

Is that what you are saying here?

And to put it differently- are contradictions possible? why or why not?

I think Grames is covering that with you just fine.

When I say "universal" I'm not really referring to "Universals" in the classical platonic sense. I simply mean that it is universally true- i.e. true about every possible thing in the universe...all encompassing...no exceptions.

In what sense is Peikoff referring to Rand as having solved the "problem of universals"? He draws a contrast of Miss Rand's solution, contrasting it with which historic views?

I'm sorry. I have no idea what your talking about. But could you please answer the questions which have to do with the heart of this discussion?

If you were honestly, intellectually pursuing a grasp and comprehension of the subject matter, your continual circling around and trying to raise a slightly different context of your same confusions might lead us to believe we may be the wrong source to deliver you a response that fits what you want to hear.

[Argument for the existence of God]

When I say "universal" I'm not really referring to "Universals" in the classical platonic sense. I simply mean that it is universally true- i.e. true about every possible thing in the universe...all encompassing...no exceptions.

To what was Leonard Peikoff referring? Classical martian, or perhaps Divine Revelation?

[Argument for the existence of God]

Is it's truthfulness established by or apart from perception? Is perception necessary establish THAT A is A?

I know where concepts come from- what I'm after is that which they refer to. Do concepts (like Logic) refer only to perceived relationships among entities or does it also refer to an objective universal principle?

Please tell me which you hold to. I hold to the second (That is is a universal objective principle) and that is the reason for the first (We perceive it because it is universally and objectively true).

Concepts refer to the existents from which they were derived.

Duh. And 2 cookies plus 2 doughnuts equals neither 4 cookies nor 4 doughnuts!

The equation "2+2=4" assumes that you are adding 2 of one thing to 2 of the same thing.

Now...please answer the question. Is 2+2=4 a universal principle which must be the case at all times, or is it simply true about what has been observed- meaning that it's possibly not true about that which has not been observed?

While your at it, could you also please answer the same question about "A is A"? Is it the case because it is a universal objective principle OR is it because we've never caught something "being itself and not itself" at the same time and same relationship? And if you say the second option, do you agree then that contradictions are possible and that we simply have not observed any yet?

2+2=4 when you are using number to count number with.

Correspondence to reality.

Because concepts correspond to reality.

Again. I know how I used senses to get the definition of "square" and "circle". Remember, I already said that. I already said that I agree with you on that.

What I am saying is that once you have the definitions, you do not need to appeal to perception in order to prove that there are no square circles.

But just to make it clear: lets ask the same question about this issue.

Is it universally and objectively true that "there are no square circles" OR are square circles possible and we just haven't happened to come across any yet?

When you use the concepts, you are implicitly appealing to the data of sense.

Please let me know your answer to these questions as it would be extremely helpful to this conversation.

With all of the following:

"A is A"

"2+2=4"

"There are no square circles"

choose an answer:

1) They are true because they are universal objective principles which must be true.

OR

2) They are true about all which has been perceived, but it is possible for perception to give us evidence that they are not true in the future.

One or the other.

They are true because knowledge is contextual, the context by which it was established logically and heirarchially, corresponding the concept(s) to the data of sense in reality from which they were derived.

With all your referencing to 'universal' you might consider reading the material leading up to this, where Leonard Peikoff says:

The answer to the "problem of universals" lies in Ayn Rand's discovery of the relationship between universals and mathematics. Specifically, the answer lies in the brilliant comparison she draws between concept-formation and algebra.

[Argument for the existence of God]

I don't understand how they DO rely on sense data.

Validate "A is A" with sense data. I don't think it can be done.

Actually, the Law of Identity is grasped conceptually (where do concepts come from again. Yes that's right, hence they trace back to the perceptual.)

Notice all the times I italicized "prove" and "explain", etc.... Yes, we experience sense data and use it to experientially discover principles. But those principles are not dependent on the sense data in order to be proven or explained. I gradually learned the principle that "2+2=4" by observing 2 cookies and 2 more cookies, and then counting "1,2,3,4 cookies", and then the same with crayons, and toys, etc.. until I realized that in all of my sense data experience "2+2" always made "4". Now, here is the important part:

Do I currently believe that 2 and 2 make 4 because I have never caught them behaving otherwise? Do I believe it because I've never happened to run across anything that didn't happen like that? OR is it because I see now that 2 plus 2 must always equal 4 as a universal principle- and that is why I've never experienced them acting differently!?

I hold to the second. I have realized that this principle is universally, objectively true because it must be so- not because I've never experienced otherwise which would imply the possibility of it not being universally objectively true. If your primary reason for believing it is the first (that you've never experienced sense data that says otherwise), this would imply that it is possible for it to be otherwise- that there is possibly something out there for which 2 and 2 make not 4 and that you just have not seen it yet. This would also mean that you could not be sure that 2 and 2 make 4 of any particular thing unless and until you had the opportunity to examine it with your own senses.

2 qts. of water mixed with 2 qts. of ethyl alcohol yield 3.86 qts. of liquid, at 15.56°C.

Truth.

Let me put it another way that might be more comfortable though. "It is possible to know absolute truth". This statement functions the same way.

What is 'truth'?

That's not what I said. We use sense data to develop our definitions of "square" and "circle", but after that we don't use sense data to understand that a square circle is a contradiction.

It is precisely the data of sense that permits you to grasp and understand. You used the data of sense to grasp, comprehend, and understand "square" and "circle" and the as an aside, attach a definition to the term to 'jog your memory' if you will to recollect what data of sense gave rise to them.

[Argument for the existence of God]

I will repeat what I have said numerous times. If you don't understand how this is validation, please tell me. If you disagree that it is validation, please tell me. But either way, please let me know that you've read it.

I don't understand how your examples do not rely on the data of sense for validation.

1) "A is A" is absolutely valid and true and needs no "data of sense" to back it up or explain it.

[YES! I know that we don't automatically know that "A is A" until after we perceive it in many things, and that we consequently abstract it from sense data. I don't care! I do not care that we experience sense data first just like I don't care that we experience ethics first! That doesn't change the fact that ethics depends on metaphysics. Our experience does not determine the order of reality. The point here is that once we know that it's true (regardless of how we came to know it) it's truthfulness does not depend on sensory perception- we do not need to appeal to sensory perception to prove or validate it.]

So we experience sense data first to determine it is true, but we didn't rely on date of sense to validate it originally? Duh. We used the data of sense to validate it already.

2) "There is absolute truth" is absolutely valid and true because the opposite "there is no absolute truth" is contradictory and therefore by LEM, this statement is absolutely affirmed- and no perceptual sense data is needed to prove that it is so.

What do these propositions refer to?

3) "There are no Square circles" is absolutely valid and true for the same reasons as the above proposition. Yes, we use sense data to derive the definitions of "square" and "circle", but given the definitions, no sense data is needed to prove that "square circles do not exist". I do not need to waste any graph paper in order to prove that there are no square circles. If I did need to use graph paper or go on an expedition looking for them, then sense perception would be needed.

So we use the data of sense to grasp what "square" and "circle" are, but after we grasp what they are, we didn't use the data of sense to grasp what they are?

Not sure what you mean.

It is taken from:

The Journals of Ayn Rand

Part 4 - Atlas Shrugged

11 - The Mind On Strike

"Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it."

The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy is not valid here.

[Argument for the existence of God]

However, I do hold that perception is one of the main ways to validate our concepts- but not the only.

Other than the data of sense, what is another way to validate our concepts?

I am beginning to get the sense that reason is not automatic here.

[Favorite Non-Ayn Rand Novel?]

J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings is about the only book I've ever read twice, save Rand's material.

Moby Dick, War and Peace, Dune, Chronicles of Narnia, Pilgrim's Progress, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe were all memorable.

I do not recall by whom they were written, the stories that told the tales of Greek Mythology stir pleasant recollections of pre-teen readings.

[The Giving Tree]

I heard there's a different ending now.. have you seen it? Know what it is?

I've seen the rape and pillage ending in an e-mail as I recall.

I suppose, as one of Aesop's Fables, the copyright may have expired by now.

[The Giving Tree]

I am reminded by this thread of the 'Chicken Little' story.

Who will help me plant the wheat/corn.

Who will help me weed the wheat/corn.

Who will help me grind the wheat/corn.

etc. to which the reply every time was 'Not I', said the various other farm animals.

This one has two endings apparently. The altruist ending where the meager bread produced was divvied up to even those who did not help, and the more capitalist ending where those who did not help in the production of the bread, did not partake in its consumption.

[The TSA’s Extortion Racket]

Well said. In fact, I might borrow this statement sometime

I wish I could claim it as my own to confer it, but the individual who I heard it from has since passed away and as a patriot and Objectivist, would not mind it being spread further.

[Argument for the existence of God]

In so far as I correctly understand the plain meaning of what you've said, I agree- with the exception of the emboldened statements.

These statements seem to imply that "that which is not traceable back to the perceptual level/ultimately directly observable is arbitrary".

But these statements, these assumptions, are not traceable back to the perceptual level or directly observable and therefore, by their own definitions are arbitrary.

The emboldened statement states that the concept is invalid, not arbitrary.

The Empirical/ Synthetic/ Directly observable/ Perceptual ALONE is not sufficient to be the standard of that which is to be considered true or arbitrary.

Likewise, in most cases

The Rational/ Analytic/ Deductible / Logical ALONE is not always true and therefore can be arbitrary.

The method of developing concepts is based on a relationship between existence and consciousness - the data of sense provides the material for abstracting our concepts.

However, there are (and must be) some cases in which the Logical apart from the perceptual is not arbitrary- and further- is absolutely true. Exhibit a: "A is A". Exhibit b: "There is absolute truth". Exhibit c: "There are no square circles". Exhibit d: "Contradictions do not exist".

This does not mean that unicorns are true just because they are not illogical! I know that's what you are afraid of. That is not what I am saying. I am not saying that if something is logically coherent (non-contradictory) that it is automatically true. I am not saying that. I am not saying that.

The analytic/synthetic dichotomy is not based on Rand's theory of concepts. It relies on divorcing the concepts from reality, and counts on you treating them as floating abstractions for its power.

Unicorns are described as horses with a horn, both of which are observable independently, and via the human capacity for fantasy allow us to conjure an image in our minds of what that might be. While horses are a real and valid concept, and a horn is a real and valid concept as an attribute of rhino's, bull's and buffalo's, - the stolen concept is applying the horn to the horse, ignoring that it belongs to the latter.

I am saying that some things are automatically true, apart from perception/observation, if they are logically necessary; i.e. if their opposite is logically contradictory.

Therefore something should be considered absurd if there is no logically necessary reason to believe that it is so and if there is no perceptual evidence to believe that it is so. To take one without the other is to participate in that "Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy". The way I am proposing we think about truth is the only way to avoid such a dichotomy.

Declaring that something is automatically true is an example of using true as a stolen concept. The true is an end product of a method that need be discovered by man's mind. This method is identified by the science of epistemology. The science of epistemology relies on concepts to assert the methods it discovers. A method of validating your concepts is necessary to validate your propositions.

You NEED to come to terms with this. You NEED to let go of your obsession with the purely perceptual. I do not think that Rand operated on the purely perceptual at all. Perhaps she thought she did, but it is quite evident that she did not.

I only need to come to terms with how intellectually honest you are being. What we are discussing here is conceptual, not purely perceptual. Your original post suggests familiarity with Objectivism. Your assertions do not suggest that you have integrated much of Miss Rands Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, especially her breakdown of the method or process by which concepts are formulated.

These assumptions that "only that which is perceptual/observable is true" are illogical, self-contradictory, and disastrous to philosophy and human knowledge in general. It is, I fear, what Rand would have referred to as "mystics of muscle" if taken seriously. The trick is that no one actually takes these purely perceptual assumptions seriously because it is impossible to do so without reverting into a chimpanzee.

If what Rand proposes is so illogical, self-contradictory and disastrous to philosophy and human knowledge in general, why does this and other similar threads generate so much interest? Are you just trying to 'save' Objectivist's from their errors by pointing them out in this manner? Or does the certainty that Objectivist acquire via the application of a methodology that is in alignment with reality draw you to honestly try to grasp why it is different and what sets it apart from the others? Or could it be that there is a fear that if Objectivism becomes nearly as prevalent as Aristotle's influence observed as 'common sense' is, the ramifications that would hold for those who desire to place the 'whim' above the 'what is'?

[Argument for the existence of God]

I agree with this.

"there is no scientific evidence for that assertion and therefore it is absurd"

Leonard Peikoff addresses this in OPAR in Chapter 5 under the subheading The Arbitrary as Neither True Nor False.

Dog, Cat, Man as against tree, flower, grass are integrated under Animal, or Plant.

Animal, Plant, Insects as against rock, dirt, water are integrated under Living Organism, or Inanimate Object.

Living Organism, Inanimate Object can be integrated under Entity

Likewise, Entity can be broken down, or reduced back to the perceptual level by tracing the logical heirarchy that gave rise to it.

Invalid Concepts cannot trace their roots logically or heirarchially back to the perceptual level. God, ghost, demons, are examples of such.

Most attempts to validate these rely on Stolen Concepts to smuggle in a false sense of validity, and only then with those who have not have a firm grasp on establishing the validity of the concepts as referenced in the ITOE quote you acknowledge agreement with.

Edited to add:

Even if the words and the concepts they refer to can be validated by the relating to them to the existents which gives rise to them, the proposition still needs to align with the directly observable, or be based on other propositions that can have their veracity established as well.

[The TSA’s Extortion Racket]

Further, Article IV of the Bill of Rights is not geographically limited. The right to be secure in your person and free from illegal search and seizure applies to the individual, regardless of whether that individual is at home, work or the airport. Furthermore, there is a belief among some that sacrifice of this right is the price necessary for security. I say that this is the speech of the cowardly. The first defense against terrorism is the American citizen. The strongest weapon of the American citizen is the Consitution. To voluntarily sacrifice the rights of the Consitution is to weaken the American citizen, and destroy the nation. If the stated goal of terrorists is to destroy this nation, then apathetic and fearul citizens. willing to sacrifice their Consitutional rights, are the terrorists greatest weapon and ally.

I would further augment this with the 'shall not be infringed' portion of Article II of the Bill of Rights.

If you do not know what your rights are, you do not have any.

[Argument for the existence of God]

Personally, I care very little about Popper's particular position. I care much more about yours and those of most Objectivists.

Do you accept this principle: "only that which is empirically testable can be said to be true"? If not, do you hold to a similar position, but worded differently? If this is the case, could you present your position?

Have you considered ITOE pg. 48

Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts. He retains concepts in his mind by means of definitions. He organizes concepts into propositions—and the truth or falsehood of his propositions rests, not only on their relation to the facts he asserts, but also on the truth or falsehood of the definitions of the concepts he uses to assert them, which rests on the truth or falsehood of his designations of essential characteristics.

[The true nature of religion in civilization's development]

I probably should have titled the thread "the true nature of the philosophy that emerged from religion in civilization's development". I was considering religion synonymous with philosophy but the mystical aspects are not, once it is rationally demonstrated that they are mystical.

Rand and Peikoff have both written on 'religion as philosophy':

Observe that in mankind's history, art began as an adjunct (and, often, a monopoly) of religion. Religion was the primitive form of philosophy: it provided man with a comprehensive view of existence. Observe that the art of those primitive cultures was a concretization of their religion's metaphysical and ethical abstractions.

Religion, as a philosophy, is still a power which no man can abstain.

Religion is "canned philosophy": you don't have to know what's in it or how it's cooked, no effort is required of you, just swallow it—and if it poisons you, it was your own fault, the cooks will tell you, you didn't have enough "faith."

It is a compromise between poison and food, faith and reason, the poison of faith and the need of reason to properly feed the mind.

The desire to escape that answer {"We couldn't help it"} is the motive that attracts so many haters to the intellectual professions today—as they were attracted to philosophy or to its primitive precursor, religion, through all the ages. There have always been men of arrested mental development who, dreading reality, found psychological protection in the art of incapacitating the minds of others.

By smuggling in one lie packaged among nine truths, religion often destroys or stunts the development of the capacity to discern the difference on one's own.

Religion involves a certain kind of outlook on the world and a consequent way of life. In other words, the term "religion" denotes a type (actually, a precursor) of philosophy. As such, a religion must include a view of knowledge (which is the subject matter of the branch of philosophy called epistemology) and a view of reality (metaphysics). Then, on this foundation, a religion builds a code of values (ethics). So the question becomes: what type of philosophy constitutes a religion?

Another question that comes to mind: what religion could fully integrate Rand's theory of concepts?

Philosophy is the goal toward which religion was only a helplessly blind groping. The grandeur, the reverence, the exalted purity, the austere dedication to the pursuit of truth, which are commonly associated with religion, should properly belong to the field of philosophy. Aristotle lived up to it and, in part, so did Plato, Aquinas, Spinoza—but how many others? It is earlier than we think.

This is a future civilization worth developing.

[The true nature of religion in civilization's development]

I think I misread what you had originally written, in light of this response.

If an individual, regardless of how religious, resorts to reason and evidence of the senses to bring about an advancement in knowledge, by what criteria do we lump this under a "the true nature of religion in civilization's development."? Just because an individual is unfortunate enough to have been stultified by exposure to religious influences during the course of their life, does not exempt them from grasping that there may be something more to discovering what is actually in reality true despite perhaps a lifetime of religious indoctrination? Is this an application of 'religious philosophy', or did some of the truth that religion need smuggle in to appear plausable, burst forth in an erudition - at which point - is it mysticisim at play, or the kernal of truth that germinated and brought forth the fruit?

[The true nature of religion in civilization's development]

Mysticism can only be refuted by experimentation, whether it be "thought experimentation" or otherwise. Peikoff readily acknowledges this, but he goes from Thomist mysticism to the Enlightenment.

Peikoff acknowledges this?

What Peikoff acknowledges is mysticism is a primacy of consciousness approach. If you want to demonstrate that Mysticism is validated by experimentation, be my guest.

Is this what you are asking to be used as a method of congnition that leads to a validable and provable source of truth?

Mysticism is the theory that man has a means of knowledge other than sense perception or reason, such as revelation, faith, intuition, and the like. As we have seen, this theory reduces to emotionalism. It amounts to the view that men should rely for cognitive guidance not on the volitional faculty of thought, but on an automatic mental function, feeling.

[Is there properly any kind of obligation?]

Do you think there is such a thing as obligation? Reality does dictate, but is anyone obligated to comply?

The verb “oblige” (to bind by oath, contract, promise, etc.) dates back to 1325, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. “Obligate,” which came along in 1533, adds a moral dimension to the sense of obligation; it means to bind morally, or to put (a person) under a moral obligation.

Reality is non-negotiable. Reality simply is.

While obligate arises as in a legal context, reality assures that if you step off the edge of the Empire State Building, choose not to eat, or take a nap outdoors when the temperature is below 0° that you will comply.

In the context of philosophy, in the branch of epistemology as the science of the methods of knowledge, ethics as the science of the methods of living one's life - it identifies if you do 'x', 'y' should follow. If you don't do 'x' but do 'z' instead, a different consequence awaits. The law of causality, a corollary, is action appied to identity. It would suggest that the action you choose initiate, as an entity will determine the effect.

[The true nature of religion in civilization's development]

I agree with this, but our country(assuming you're American) still evolved from Protestant Christianity.

Corrolation is not causality. Protestant Christianity is not just a US phenomena. The US was developed from a study of historical principles, and while some of the individuals involved attended church, it was an understanding of the problems inherent in monarchies, feudalship, and democracies that helped for formulate these United States.

The United States was not established on 'a set of mystical views about the supernatural origins of, workings of, and purposes of reality, and what that implies about the living of human life.'*

*'John Ridpth, Religion vs Man'

[Quantitative Easing Explained]

I'm having a flashback to the Lilliputian character named Glum from The Adventures of Gulliver.

He would always say in a pessimistic voice, "We're doooomed. We're all doooooomed."

[Validating Axioms with a Co-Worker]

"how the universe is not prior to atoms"

What does Binswanger mean by "atom"?

If all that Binswanger means is that the totality of everything that exists must have started out as *something*, I agree.

But I would NOT call that something "atoms". Current theory holds that atoms formed out of protons and electrons. If Binswanger was trying to resurrect the Greek idea of fundamental entities, there are less confusing ways to do it.

I would call the something "prior existents", i.e. existents prior to and responsible for the particle zoo we're familiar with. I would NOT call them "first existents" because we have no way of knowing whether the entities behind the visible universe are the first entities or simply another generation in an even longer history.

The situation is a bit like when chemists started calling certain particles "atoms", meaning "un-cutable", before we discovered they were indeed cut-able.

Personally, it came across as atoms are not more significant than tables, or tables more significant than the universe. Erase human consciousness and you have no hierarchy. As scientist, there is a tendancy to fall into the idea that 'atoms are the real stuff' and wow, subatomic particles, well, they blow even atoms away'.

In previous conversations with my co-worker, this is the line of thinking he is enamored with.

Causality to him is not action applied to the law of identity. He wants to know that water, comprised of hydrogen and oxygen, - how do hydrogen and oxygen 'know' to 'become' water.

Atoms are comprised of protons, neutrons and electrons. How do these subatomic particles 'know' to become the elements.

Newton discovered the gravitational constant. What gives rise to gravity, and 'what chose' the gravitational constant.

I am trying to avoid getting into that here, and your earlier reply pointed out an avenue that I had not considered taking. It is as if the 'blinders' are on, and the focus is reducing it back to axioms as the given. Perhaps a steering into the formation of concepts may give him (and myself) a run for the money. Quite frankly, this R(ule)M(aker) approach has grown about as old as turning missionaries away from the door on a Saturday morning.

[The true nature of religion in civilization's development]

Locke was not a Christian, but he was clearly influenced by the fundamentalist Christianity of Samuel Rutherford. That is the crucial point. Locke's family fought for Oliver Cromwell.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Locke's family were Puritans. At Oxford, Locke avoided becoming an Anglican priest. Still, Locke's nineteenth century biographer Fox Bourne thought that Locke was an Anglican and Locke himself claimed to be an Anglican until he died.

[The true nature of religion in civilization's development]

With the Stoics and Vaisheshika atomists extinct, it is probable that Enlightenment ideas came from Protestant ideas and not Aquinas directly. Almost every single Enlightenment philosopher of lasting consequence came from a Protestant background, but became Deist later or remained Christian. It is quite clear that Locke based his pro-individual views on Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex and also George Buchanan's thought for instance. David Hume and Thomas Paine clearly considered Aquinas as inferior to Jonathan Edwards. Rand's philosophy is good, but her and Peikoff's views of the history of religion fly in the face of every bit of historical evidence.

While I have read Human Understanding, I am not as familiar with Samuel Rutherford's contributions. As to Locke, while religious in many ways, I do not view him as an attempt on the religious establishment to be a 'driving force of civilization', rather someone who attended church, and attempted to understand how the human mind comes to grasp the world via the application of reason. Aquinas was an example of a rationalist who in the face of Aristotilian data, attempted to renconcile faith by getting Aristotle's views to fit the religious conclusion Aquinas had already accepted as incontrovertable by that time in his life.

As Christianity tries to take credit for the formulation of these United States, a crass attempt at revisionist history, its attempt to do so should become a part of the historical evidence, and ultimately the relationship between history and religion will allow us to look for religion in the one place it deserves to be found: in history.