Well Sells,

I see you have made no attempt to justify your causal claim, nor to explain to your readers how you have transgressed all norms of academic rigour to make such a claim – no doubt acceptable in matters of faith, but not science. Hopefully you are doing some research into the questions I asked, and can now explain in an equally simplistic manner how such horrors have occurred which have nothing at all to do with Marx’s ideas.

You suggest that Marx was “a direct descendent” of Feuerbach and provide the following interpretation:

“To-turn.."the-friends-of-God-into-friends-of-man,-believers-into-thinkers,-worshippers-into-workers,-candidates-for-the-other-world-into-students-of-this-world,-Christians,-who-on-their-own-confession-are-half-animal-and-half-angel,-into-men—whole-men."7-To-these-proposed-improvements-he-had-earlier-added:-"theo¬logians-into-anthropologians-.-.-.-,-religious-and-political-footmen-of-a-celestial-and-terrestrial-monarchy-and-aris¬tocracy-into-free,-self-reliant-citizens-of-earth.”

“I-deny-only-to-affirm.-I-deny-the-fantastic-projection-of-theology-and-religion-in-order-to-affirm-the-real-essence-of-man.”

This-is-the-foundation-of-Marxism.-It-seeks-to-destroy-all-of-the-religious-hypostases-and-expose-them-as-products-of-man.-But-instead-it-builds-its-own-made-of-man-himself-with-disastrous-consequences.-It-is-no-accident-that-communist-regimes-all-turned-into-secular-religions-that-systematically-slaughtered-its-citizens.”

Marx and Engels did indeed take account of Feuerbach in their conceptions, however they did not just accept his tenets, and in fact quite comprehensively critiqued him. Interested readers can find Engels’ “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosopy” here http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/index.htm

A quote:

“The only religion which Feuerbach examines seriously is Christianity, the world religion of the Occident, based upon monotheism. He proves that the Christian god is only a fantastic religion, a mirror image, of man. Now, this god is, however, himself the product of a tedious process of abstraction, the concentrated quintessence of the numerous earlier tribal and national gods. And man, whose image this god is, is therefore also not a real man, but likewise the quintessence of the numerous real men, man in the abstract, therefore himself again a mental image…..

In the form he is realistic since he takes his start from man; but there is absolutely no mention of the world in which this man lives, hence, this man remains always the same abstract man who occupied the field in the philosophy of religion”

Is this not what you mean by “build its own [hypostases] made of man himself”? Despite their limited admiration for his work, Marx and Engels were critical of Feuerbach themselves.

It is a little disingenuous don’t you think, to claim that Marx was a “direct descendent” of Feuerbach and made gods of men which led directly to “secular religions” and then directly to slaughter. It is much more complex.

Tao.
Thank you for your considered post. You obviously know more about the relationship of Fauerbach and Marxism than I. My response to Fauerbach’s assertion that all Christian theology is subjective, a projection of our wishes dreams and desires, is to again say that theology is an objective science. I refer you to an article on my home page:

http://petersellick.nationalforum.com.au/articles45.html

Sells,

Is this http://petersellick.nationalforum.com.au/articles45.html a serious example of the objective scientific method of theology?

Firstly, let us deal with your pejorative unfounded assertion that “Devotees” of science “would-have-profound-difficulties-relating-to-another-person-in-anything-but-a-superficial-and-utilitarian-fashion.--Intimacy-with-another-would-be-impossible-because-how-could-we-trust-thoughts-and-feelings-evoked-by-that-other-that-could-not-be-empirically-tested?”

Apart from the obvious fact that scientists themselves are quite capable of trusting thoughts and feelings and being intimate, the question arises – Why, if this were true, would you then want to subject your precious God and his “word” to an objective, trust and intimacy-destroying, scientific method, and characterize your precious theology as an “objective science”?

You say – “theological-science-investigates-the-reality-of-God-as-born-witness-to-in-the-scriptures” and “this-science-takes-as-its-modus-operandi-the-investigation-of-what-the-scriptures-say-about-God”.

What scientific evidence is there for “the reality of God”?

What does the term “born witness” mean scientifically?

From your description, the “modus operandi” of theology appears to consist of firstly ACCEPTING that there is a God, then ACCEPTING that the scriptures tell us the truth about God, and then interpreting the scriptures to claim credit for all sorts of things, and to fit historical events (which by any stretch of the imagination cannot be considered scientific).

You comment that, as opposed to science which can only accurately describe the world and ‘spawn’ reliable technology, “the PROOF of theological science is its power to accurately describe the human and to produce individuals and hence societies that nurture human life” and “Getting theology wrong is bad for your health!”. Really?

Did the bible accurately describe the genesis of humans 6000 years ago? What spin might theological “science” put on that little error to PROVE it was “accurate”?

And I suppose the kind of society that nurtures human life is one in which HUMAN LIFE was tortured and burnt at the stake in the name of God.

What was the life expectancy for a human being in Europe prior to the “scientific” development of medicine, compared to that now?

Do you really call this thesis, which does not hold up to even the most cursory objective scrutiny, science? .

Have you submitted your thesis to the Faculty of Science at your University for review?

Tao,

What the Bible describes 6,000 years ago is the transition from Garden Cultures to the Summerian city states. Before then there was a period of 12,000 to 20,000 years where people were not quite nomads. These folk settled for a few years in one place then moved on.

Around 4,000 BCE cities like Ur were founded. Organised priesthoods were established about then, where presumably shamanism divided into religion and medicine: This is way say, if we stretch the imagination, and say Jesus is God; the intercessionist Churches have usurped Him. We probably don't need a God: We definitely don't need Churches.

In the West no doubt the religionists stifled progress. But it is also true that in the last centuries of the Roman Empire many of the contributions of the best Greeks were lost. When this was rediscovered in the West via Byzantine Empire we have the foundations for the Enlightenment.

Sells,

The more I have thought about this, the more annoyed I have become. Here you are, peddling absolute twaddle about theology being “science” and using your taxpayer funded title from an educational institution to lend credence to your completely unscientific and unsubstantiated arguments.

I wonder what the University of WA Science Faculty thinks of your efforts. As far as I’m concerned you are using your position to befuddle people about the nature of the scientific method and science. Any serious educational institution ought to be extremely concerned about (a) the obfuscatory effect your actions have on unsuspecting and non-scientifically trained (and perhaps uneducated) members of the public, and (b) the effect your actions have on the credibility of the institution itself.

What do you have to say about this? Quite frankly, I am thinking about making a complaint to the University.

Oliver,

Considering creationists think Adam was only created 4,500 years ago (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1606), I don’t know where you get your information from – perhaps from believers who recognize a literal interpretation of the bible is not accurate, but then spin it into “symbolism” in order to fit the facts gained from historical and archeological research.

With regard to your earlier comments about Marx not taking into account a “purchasing class” - Marxism takes as its basis for class analysis, peoples’ relationship to the means of production. For as long as a person does not own the means to produce and sustain his/her own life and has to sell his/her labour for that sustenance, he/she is working class, or proletariat – whether in industrial capitalism or market capitalism.

With regard to your comment “trade unions and industrial laws have held capitalism in check”, it is becoming apparent for all to see that industrial laws holding capitalism in check are being eroded, and trade unions are completely impotent when it comes to defending the interests of the working class. In fact trade unions are now being exposed as the defenders and agents of the profit system that they always have been.

Oliver, what is with the nine absolutions? I am not aware of the story

I agree ritual can be over the top. It can also be trivialised and its expression diluted.

In ritual, two people can be present; one participating as a truly human expression of worshiping God, above and beyond and wondrous. The other participating as an act of worship of a sacred being that, no matter how dressed up, is a merely a component in the ritual. Who is doing what, and to what degree, I expect would be seen in the lives they live. One dynamic and enriched, the other static and staid blending in easily with the society around them.

The Catholic Church tradition welcomes all comers. Yes, there is validity in some criticism of the personal piety programmes, the extremes of which are always good for a video image to further impress some prejudice. But many of them are part of a journey and are moved on from where there is real open faith practised with Scripture prayer and reflection. This is part of the ongoing paring of the externalities that hide the essential beauty and awe of the God relationship. (Continued)