Does the Positivist Movement hate religion

too much to become ethical?

I am currently reading Marilynne Robinson’s book, “Absence of Mind.” While from a Christian perspective, Marilynne raises some insightful analysis of world history that shows up the philosophical ‘sloppiness’, prejudice really, that has become the hallmark of the aetheistic, positivist movement. Of course, I can fully understand the anger and frustration that has clouded their judgement in this manner, and reminded of Baha’u’llah’s exhortion, “When a true seeker determineth to take the step of search in the path leading unto the knowledge of the Ancient of Days, he must, … so cleanse his heart that no remnant of either love or hate may linger therein, lest that love blindly incline him to error, or that hate repel him away from the truth.” (Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 264). I also fully recognise the value that the positivist movement has created for those societies, again reminding me of Baha’u’llah and Abdu’l-Baha’s constant encouragement to build sciences that have ethical and productive outcomes.

The ongoing blindspot in the positivist aetheist movement is the failure to reconcile and engage with the enormous value that religious discipline has had in the world, and that the majority of expenditure on positivist science goes towards killing people. If we add to that the expenditure that is orientated towards technologies that allow the wealthy to increasingly dominate the populations of the world, often without providing best product or service that is available, then the unethical behaviour related to science probably projects towards the 90 percentile of expenditure. This is a very precarious place for the world to be. And, though I am feeling a little precarious myself from the economic downturn of the last couple of years, I think it was the best thing that could have happened to humanity. Yet whether governments, bankers, multinationals, actually understand what is happening, and are responsive to the lesson, will determine how many rounds and how severe these rounds of reconciliation of the balance, is needed, to build ethical institutions. While those capitalists are the only game in town supporting positivist research, will positivists be able to raise their game and join religionists in the move to a more ethical society, or will they, out of ongoing denial and hate, purpose to support the status quo?

4 Replies to “Does the Positivist Movement hate religion”

  1. I have always maintained that Marxism is a way to understand the way society changes “SCIENTIFICALLY!”
    My understanding of the “Scientific Method.” is that SCIENTISTS do not believe! They either “KNOW or they DO NOT KNOW!”
    “Belief” is the absence of knowing, and that is why BELIEVERS must rely on FAITH to eliminate doubt from what they believe in.
    Scientists do not have or need FAITH , because their understanding is determined by “EVIDENCE” and the more verifiable evidence that the scientists have, the more probability that the findings of those that use the scientific method is correct.
    Philosophy cannot be an objective understanding of OBJECTIVE REALITY.
    The product of a philosophers abstract thinking. It is primarily not based on the discovery of evidence, but is the inner workings of the philosophers brain. It is SUBJECTIVE NOT OBJECTIVE!
    “DIALECTICS is based on the “PHILOSOPHY of Hegel! But what MARX did with the philosophy of Hegel, was to turn HEGEL’S philosophy on it’s head and turn it into it’s opposite of what it formerly was.
    Marx turned Hegel’s “Dialectic,” from a subjective Metaphysical philosophy of “How many angels could dance on the head of a needle,” to a Objective Materialist Science. A science that became “DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM!”
    Dialectical Materialism is the understanding that Matter is PRIMARY and nothing exists outside of MATTER IN MOTION!
    It is impossible to destroy or create the matter that exists, so the only conclusion that can be scientifically arrived at is that MATTER ALWAYS EXISTED!
    Matter is constantly changing and the way it changes from one form to another form that is incidentally a more evolved form, …is by moving in a DIALECTICAL way that is forced to do so by the irreconcilable contradictions that exist inside of all forms of matter and everything that reflects “MATTER IN MOTION!” 

    When Hegel’s Dialectics was transformed by Karl Marx it was no longer a subjective philosophy. It became an objective SCIENCE!
    Qualitatively different from what it formerly was.

    All true scientists attempt to discover what is objectively true and they attempt to do so by approaching their subject matter with as much of an open mind as is humanly possible.
    To do otherwise would prejuidice their scientific findings and would contaminate what they were scientifically attempting to do.

    Because my understanding of Dialectical Materialism is objective and not subjective.
    It would not be rational for me to BELIEVE in Dialectical Materialism, because It is not an “IDEOLOGY! It is a SCIENCE!
    A Science of understanding of what occurred in the past and what is occurring in the present and consequently what will occur in the future.

    Because it is a scientific understanding. and it is not an “IDEOLOGICAL BELIEF, I cannot believe in what events will happen in the future! … I can SCIENTIFICALLY know what events will happen in the future!
    I know that ‘Socialism will follow Capitalism and that Communism will follow Socialism!
    This is not what I believe, this is what I know!
    SCIENCE is capable of predicting outcome. Science when it understands a particular cause can accurately predict the particular effect of that particular cause.
    Science using the scientific method can accurately predict the future!
    Those that enter the arena to argue that MARXISM is an IDEOLOGY or a PHILOSOPHY is dead wrong and does the science of Marxism a disservice!

    1. Of course, at a daily level, I use a lot of positivism. But I don’t feel I can rely on it to provide me the meaning that will get me out of bed in the morning. However, positivism would say that the things I find meaningful do not exist. However surely my mind, rational faculty, emotions, dreams, belief, hopes etc exist. So, why would positivism deny the mind in the equation of life. Regardless of assertions that we are being rational, all decision-making has an emotional aspect. Certainly not because they are being scientific for it is now shown that that is an oxymoron (thinking wise). No, because the foundation and fundamental characteristic of the positivist movement is hatred of religion, not an understanding of science. So, from this hatred, a whole blindness occurs in the minds of positivists. Denial of this hatred just means that positivists cannot deal with their hatred. If I know that my love for something or my hate for something is getting in the road, then I can start on some journey to unravel my hatred and love. I may never resolve but at least I would not be hypocritical. Out of the blindness of hate, we have seen this ready capitulation to the war machine. So, the question remains, can positivists get beyond their hatred and move toward a peaceful ethic? As for the left movement, in Australia, supporters of left politics openly use the mantra, “you’ve got to maintain a long, strong hatred to get ahead in the left.” Baha’u’llah insists this is and always will be detrimental to society.

      1. Whenever you have social and political opposites interacting, you will have the emotion of hate, as a natural emotional consequence.

        Competition breeds “hate.” of those, that they are competing with. Cooperation breeds “love!”

        The intensity of your feelings will depend on how partisan your feelings are in the struggle between natural opposing forces.

        The extremes at the opposite sides of a spectrum will act in extreme ways because of their extreme partisan feelings

        Those at the center of the political spectrum will be moderate in their feelings and inclined to compromise between opposite forces.

        The “Moderates eventually will be regarded as “SELL OUT” traitors, by the extreme elements, at the partisan extreme ends, of the political spectrum.

        Conflict between opposite forces occurs when the moderate compromising center becomes no longer relevant to the conditions and surroundings that exist in the total environment.

        Without a center to separate the extreme opposite ends of the political spectrum the consequence will naturally be a CLASH of opposites that will either take us to the no longer relevant past, or towards a new more relevant future.

        That what is no longer relevant will always be overthrown, and a new more relevant modern moderate CENTER, that is in harmony with the modern circumstances, situations and conditions, will come into being, taking the place of the old no longer relevant political moderate CENTER.

        The question of “LOVE and HATE is not determined by a lack of feeling or understanding.

        It depends on how partisan you are in the normal struggle for and against that what is central to your life!

  2. Of course, the phenomenon you describe is the current cultural process. Interestingly in some form it is evident in older village systems where they are still alive in the world. However there is ready evidence that competition does not require ‘hate’, rather a willingness to maintain a detached analysis and response. It can be fluid with cooperation, the allegiances strengthening and weakening as the individual components find more or less value with such. This, in itself, requires an essential culture of justice, fairness. Intensity of feelings comes before a developed partisan view, and often the intensity of response is taught to children as one enculturaling process in which they grow up with a strong sense of the ‘other’. Partisanship itself is determined by an attachment to control of the ‘other’. The political moderate centre, in Australia at least, seems to be a paralysed thing, a stagnated, do-barely-nothing state becasue the reality of moden society is that it is diverse and complex in its thinking and non-thinking about the issues. Partisanship and the democracies built on it will fail because of this. They will live longer as they learn how to encompass a more diverse discourse. But eventually they will progress only when they have learnt to be an entity of independent human beings. An independent human being is one who is capable of great service and sacrifice, and is truly capable of interdependence. While other forms of government may have a day in the sunshine, they shall all fail until at last we humans have learnt to be this entity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s