So I was hearing a podcast where Vervaeke says:
Steven (Pinker) has some good things to say and he's a good cognitive scientist, but the enlightenment is not sort of, religious neutral. The enlightenment makes autonomy - it's sacred thing, and it tries to see autonomy wherever it looks and it, and autonomy. Autonomy! Autonomy!
He goes on further:
And not because it wants good reasons for that, but the problem with pursuing autonomous autonomy religiously as it was being done in the enlightenment right, is it undermines the sense of connectedness you need when you are facing a fragmentation of the world view. So one thing you try to do when things are, is like you, you try to become a fully self-defining thing and people still try this strategy today. What do I have faith in? I have faith in myself. And people go, oh, yes. And they clap. And it's like, that's a disastrous place to be. You don't want to be there, right? Because your capacities for self-deception and self-destruction are significant and profound and pervasive.
How does one make the claim the enlightenment's central value was autonomy? And is Vervaeke's/ Pinker's (this particular) opinion of the enlightenment mainstream? Feel free to include references.