"Purely"? Would you please elaborate and give some examples? Advances in Science and medicine are "demonic"?
Anything good coming out of that demonic movement was only because of the goodness of God. What man meant for evil, God meant for good. God can use the evils of men for some good purpose.
My focus in calling it demonic had everything to do with how it influenced various protestant denominational beliefs.
The Congregationalists are Triniterians, but they had a split in the 18 hundreds...or was it the 17 hundreds? hmmm, I forgot what century it was......I'm not looking at anything right now. I'm shooting from the hip, so I might be a little off.
But the Uniterians came from the congregationalists and they reject the doctrine of the Trinity, as well as other doctrines. They were influenced by the Enlightenment movement and they eventually took over Harvard University.....thus influencing the elite of this Nation......and teaching them anti-christian jargon.
And this happened with other groups as well. I call a rejection in the belief of the supernatural demonic, a rejection of the virgin birth demonic, a rejection of the bodily resurrection of Christ demonic, a rejection in the historical existence of Christ demonic.........ect.
You should know what the Enlightenment movement did to the ECUSA.
What modernism did to christian groups in the western world was demonic.....it eventually spread to Rome, and now in recent decades this "faith killer" virus has reached Orthodoxy.
It's pure poison
Maybe I'm being a bit too ruff on the Enlightenment movement. But here is what N.T. Wright had to say in passinghttp://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/january/22.38.html?start=2
One of Lewis's classic maneuvers is this: Jesus said he was God, and you either believe that or that he was a madman on the level of someone who thinks he is a poached egg. It's a powerful argument that has had a strong effect on a lot of people, but modern source criticism of the Bible has undermined the idea that Jesus claimed to be God.
N.T. Wright said:
My major work has been designed to refute the wilder claims made by some so-called historical critical scholarship. Because now we see only too clearly that the whole historical critical movement was not, as it tried to claim, a neutral, objective, scientific account of the Gospels. It had its own agendas that were heavily driven by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The movement really started out with the assumption that if there is a God, this God does not intervene in human affairs. In other words, the Enlightenment has already settled Lewis's question one way. It has decided that any Jesus who said John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," would be completely out of his skull. Therefore, Jesus couldn't have said it, because we know he was a good man and we want to follow him for other reasons. It becomes a circular argument. Lewis breaks into the circle by simply ignoring the critical possibility.
And what I'm about to post next was on my blog some weeks ago, so I'll just re-post it here:
Is Calvinism one step away from Atheism?
It is my view that Calvinism is semi-Atheistic. Especially those Calvinists that are "cessationists" I point the finger at the Zwingli/Calvin Compromise. This compromise was one of the reasons why the Reformed churches couldn't unite with the Lutherian churches.
But I would like to quote a few things by Alister Mcgrath to show that I wasn't wrong for speculating this.
He says on page 146 of his book "Christianity's Dangerous idea: The protestant revolution-a history from the sixteenth century to the twenty-first":
"The appeal of the Enlightenment proved greatest within Reformed circles. For
reasons that remain unclear, rationalism gained acceptance in many former
Calvinist strongholds. Geneva and Edinburgh, both international centers of
Calvinism in the late sixteenth century, were noted as epicenters of European
rationalism in the late eighteenth century. John Calvin and John Knox gave way
to the very different worldviews of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and David Hume. In
marked contrast, the Enlightenment had relatively little impact on Catholicism
during the eighteenth century-unless, of course, the French Revolution (1789) is
seen as a political extension of the ideas of the Enlightenment." 
He mentions this again in passing on page 264 while talking about the stripping away of the "sacred/supernatural" and the rise of the Atheistic worldview.
"While most Elizabethan Protestants were happy to follow continental ideas,
especially those of Calvin, their Jacobean and Stuart successors were
increasingly aware of the need to symbolize the interaction and interpenetration
of the sacred and secular. The poetry of George Herbert can be seen as an
attempt to retain an essentially Calvinist theology of the Sacraments, while
developing its capacity to promote the Church's social and confessional
This decoupling of the sacred from the quotidian, characteristic
of certain types of Protestantism, accelerated the rise of a functionally
atheist worldview in which God was not regarded as an active participant in the
worldview. It is no accident that two sixteenth-century European centers of
Calvinism-Geneva and Edinburgh-had became centers of rationalism two centuries
We shall have more to say about this development later. Yet it is
important to appreciate here that one of the most fundamental characteristics of
Pentecostalism is its insistence that the divine may be encountered in the
secular realm. Its astonishing success points to the reversal of this trend and
the emergence of a new form of Protestantism characterized by its expectation of
the direct experience of the spiritual within the mundane." 
I am not the onlyone who sees a connection between Calvinistic theology with the rise of Atheism. I'm not gonna say all, but alot of Calvinists tend to disregard any idea of "mystery" for the sake of "rationalism".
, and  by Dr. Alister Mcgrath, from the book Christianity's Dangerous idea: The Protestant Revolution-A history from the sixteenth Century to the twenty-First. Published by HarperOne. Copyright 2007