Marxism and Natural Sciences by Y.M. Uranovsky

 Natural science has to do with a relatively changeable nature ; on the one hand, as a result of the industrial activity of many generations, on the other hand (as the further development of science has shown) as a result of man's action upon it through the medium of investigation of observed processes.

The essence of the processes of nature cannot be understood without taking man's practical activity into account, which depends on the condition of productive forces and social construction. Only by starting from the practice of social life (industry, classes, social conditions) can human nature be understood as a part of nature as a whole, not only in the sense that man's psychology and ideas show their class essence, but in the sense of taking account of those natural (biological) changes to which he is subjected, when, in the process of changing reality, he also changes himself.

The method established by Marx spells the doom of naturalism in all its variations which looks on human society and man as an ordinary "child" of nature : the socio-power school (Podolinsky, Ostwald) ; the geo-political (Rutzel, G. E. Graf, etc.) ; every kind of bio-sociological school, starting with social-Darwinism, from Karl Kautsky's attempts to supplement Marx with a doctrine of the instincts as the starting-point for the analysis of social relationships, or the efforts of the Austro-Marxists to correct Marx by the teaching of Freud, explaining religion and culture by biological factors, right down to the philosophy of modern fascism (O. Spann) which tries to base itself on a biological theory of completeness and a doctrine of races in the organic world.

Marx breaks down all kinds of teaching on freedom of will by showing that social being determines social consciousness and in this way extends the objective method to the study of the most complex social phenomena.

In place of inconsistent, abstract, materialist monism (Spinoza, French eighteenth-century materialism, Feuerbach), Marx lays the firm foundations for a materialist monism which is not abstract, but concrete, dialectical, consistent, taking account of the specific nature of human society, of all the inner connections between nature and man in their historical development. Marx gives a method and an outlook in which the dialectic of nature and the dialectic of history are indissolubly connected together.

In Marx's views the historical primacy of nature is not in any way broken. Even before the triumph of evolutionist ideas Marx establishes the following premises : the theory of creation is destroyed, as is shown by the natural sciences (geognosis) ; nature develops, it is in process of becoming even before the appearance of man ; the development of nature goes spontaneously, is immanent, selfgenerated ; the organic world (and man) arose through generatio æquivoca ; life has not always existed as Thomson, Helmholtz and other representatives of the "absurd doctrine" of panspermy uphold. It follows that Marx understands this generatio æquivoca not as being the conception and birth of higher organisms without the intermediary of seed and parents (the mediæval form of this doctrine of generatio æquivoca, spontanea aut primaria), but in the sense of self-movement, selfdevelopment, i.e. in the sense which is in accordance with the chemical theory of the origin of life and the evolutionary theory of the origin of man, established within a decade and a half by Darwin's theory.

In a deep internal connection with these new views of the object of the natural sciences, of nature, Marx develops an absolutely new outlook on the science of nature, on natural science.

Even in the works belonging to the Holy Family Marx analyses, with greater power and depth than any of his predecessors (Bacon, Spinoza, the French materialists and philosophers of the age of enlightenment), the cultural-historical and social significance of natural science. Marx reproaches the philosophers for not taking into account the role and importance of the natural sciences. Natural science is not an external factor of usefulness for man or a chance factor of enlightenment. It is internally bound up with the most essential form of human activity, with practice, with industry, with the development of labour.

Industry is a practical relationship of man to nature, natural science, a "theoretical relationship". Industry is the basic form of practice, natural science, the foundation of human science. Industry discloses the real powers of man, and natural science is such a "real power", "a potential of production". Marx establishes the empirical origin and practical function of natural science and apportions a very important social role to natural science.

It follows that the power of Marx's analysis, surpassing all that had hitherto been written on the importance of the natural sciences, is determined by the fact that Marx knew how to generalise with genius the objective data of the epoch. Marx did not invent theories but summed up the experience of history and modern life. He often refers to the "gifts of science" which Davy, Liebig and others made to humanity.

 

Americans losing faith in science and scientists, but still value gov't investment in field: study

By Leonardo Blair, Senior Features Reporter 

97

The Museum of the Bible opens its new exhibition titled “Scripture and Science: Our Universe, Ourselves, Our Place" on Jan. 19, 2023, in Washington, D.C. | The Christian Post/ Nicole Alcindor

While a majority of Americans still have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists and believe science has had a mostly positive impact on society, an increasing minority are expressing strong levels of distrust in scientists and the impact of their work on society, a new study from the Pew Research Center shows.

The study, which includes a survey of 8,842 U.S. adults, was conducted Sept. 25-Oct. 1. Researchers also found that despite the growing distrust of scientists and the impact of their work on society, a majority of Americans still value government investment in the field.

“Despite declines in ratings of scientists and science, a large majority of Americans continue to see government investments in science as worthwhile. And most place at least some importance on the United States being a world leader in scientific achievements,” Alec Tyson, associate director of Science and Society Research, and Brian Kennedy, a senior researcher at the Pew Research Center wrote.

Nearly 80% of Americans agree that government investments in scientific research are generally good for society.

A Message from Westside Christian Fellowship

The Breaking of America: What Hurts the Most

🚨Urgent & Dire: If you think salvation is coming in 2024, you’ll be gravely mistaken. God only knows the chaos that may ensue. The real question is, are you ready? READ MORE HERE

In general, though, only 57% of Americans say science has had a mostly positive effect on society. This share is 8 percentage points lower than it was in November 2021 and 16 points lower than it was before the dawn of COVID-19.

Some 34% of Americans believe the impact of science on society has been equally positive as negative, while another 8% say the impact of science on society has been mostly negative.

Even though 73% of U.S. adults noted that they have a great deal or fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests, researchers noted that since the early stages of the pandemic, trust in scientists has fallen 14%.

The share of Americans who said they have a great deal of confidence in scientists fell from 39% in 2020 to 23% today.

The share expressing the strongest level of trust in scientists — saying they have a great deal of confidence in them — has fallen from 39% in 2020 to 23% today, while some 27% of Americans say they have not too much or no confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. That share was 12% in April 2020.

Confidence in medical scientists and scientists has shown a general decline, but researchers found it to be more pronounced among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents in recent years, researchers said.

Some 38% of Republicans “now say they have not too much or no confidence at all in scientists to act in the public’s best interests,” according to Pew.

While the study found the decline in confidence in scientists to be more pronounced in Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, the decline was also noticed among Democrats.

In November 2020, the share of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents who had a great deal of confidence in scientists was 55%. That share is now 37%.

“But unlike Republicans, a large majority of Democrats (86%) continue to express at least a fair amount of confidence in scientists to act in the public’s best interests. The overall differences in partisan views remain much more pronounced today than they were prior to the coronavirus outbreak,” the researchers noted.

While 70% of Republicans said science had a mostly positive effect on society in 2019, less than half, or 47% of that group, now say the same. Some 69% of Democrats say science has had a mostly positive effect on society but that share is still 8% lower than it was in 2019.

Despite the declines in public confidence in scientists, 73%, and medical scientists, 77%, Americans still had more trust in them and their work than, public school principals, religious leaders, and police officers.

Among American adults, 69% expressed a great deal or fair amount of confidence in police officers, 65% in public school principals and 53% in religious leaders.

A majority of Americans also said they “have not too much or no confident at all” in journalists, business leaders and elected officials.

Contact: leonardo.blair@christianpost.com Follow Leonardo Blair

What you’ll learn

 

What you’ll learn It’s a common claim that science alone gives us knowledge. As a result, Christian faith has become marginalized as a myth, without any factual basis. Yet, argues philosopher J.P. Moreland, this view called “scientism” is itself a philosophical assumption and not the conclusion of scientific observation. Science must utilize a great deal of philosophy before it can get underway. This pervasive view of scientism has devastating implications for morality, human dignity, knowledge, and much more. Its proponents naively dismiss orthodox Christianity, which actually gave rise to modern science and has historically been committed to evidence and reason. Moreland seeks to clarify what scientism is, how to identify and respond to scientistic assumptions, and how to show that Christian faith actually makes the best sense when it comes to science and a range of other considerations. Read on for key insights from Scientism and Secularism.

1. Knowledge, not faith or mere belief, gives people authority to speak and act in public. It is on the basis of perceived knowledge that we give dentists, lawyers, history teachers and so on the authority to speak about matters within their areas of expertise.  If a dentist said he had a set of deeply held beliefs about molars and was emotionally committed to those beliefs even though he didn’t actually know that his beliefs were true, he would not be allowed to continue as a dentist. Likewise for Christians, they can be confident that their faith (personal trust in God) is no blind leap but is rather a principled commitment to reality. The Christian faith is a rich knowledge tradition that has been dedicated to robust philosophical reasoning as well as public evidences that include eyewitnesses and publicly-accessible miracles— most significantly, Jesus’ bodily resurrection. They can have genuine knowledge of what is real, and they can have a cultural authority that gives them courage and boldness to speak because they know why they believe what they do. The most important idea in a society is its understanding of who does and does not have knowledge, who gets to define reality, truth, and rationality and who doesn’t.

2. Scientism is a philosophical stance that comes in two forms. Scientism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.  The claims of scientism are assertions about science, not of science.  Scientism takes two forms. The first is strong scientism. This is the view that the only knowledge we can have about reality are those that have been properly tested in the hard sciences—especially physics and chemistry. All other claims—theological, ethical, political, aesthetic, and the like—are mere expressions of emotion and private opinions. The second type is weak scientism. This position allows that there may be modestly justified beliefs outside science. However, the settled assertions of the hard sciences are vastly superior to claims outside science.

3. Scientism leads to Secularism and marginalizes Christianity and ethics. Scientism leads to the secularization of culture because it leads people to believe that no one can know anything about God, right and wrong, and so on.  If something like religious, ethical, or related claims cannot be quantified and proven in the laboratory, then the claims are nothing but hot air, mere expressions of feeling that cannot carry any authority.  Thus, the Christian faith and morality may be safely disregarded since no one can know whether those claims are reasonable or foolish. Scientism in turn has contributed to troubling trends. One of these is relativism in ethics—the view that affirms that morality is just person- or culture-relative; this is the perspective that claims, “That’s just your morality. Your moral standards are right for you, but not for me.” Scientism has also contributed to a pluralism in religion: no one religious perspective is savingly true for all people; rather, all religions are equally capable of bringing salvation or liberation. Scientism undergirds the idea that those who claim their views are true in these areas are intolerant bigots.

Want more insights? Go premium to access hundreds of titles in text and audio.

4. Scientism is causing people to abandon Christianity and is contributing to the church’s increased ineffectiveness. According to the Barna Research Group, five of the six reasons Millennials leave the church and abandon Christianity involve the suspicion that there is no good reason to believe it in the first place. These five reasons involved doubts and various intellectual issues; one of these is key:  the church does not keep up with the developments of modern science, nor does it know how to relate to them from a biblical perspective or worldview. Nor does it help parishioners to do so. The church isn’t adjusting to the discoveries of modern science. No wonder scientism seems credible to many—it seems that Christian claims are mere expressions of feeling with no authority to command belief. Scientism has marginalized the church. Given its numbers, its impact on culture should be orders of magnitude greater than it is. Why? Because Christians lack boldness and courage. Society believes Christian ideas to be irrelevant and not authoritative since they cannot be known without scientific proof.

5. Strong scientism is self-refuting and must, therefore, be rejected. A statement or sentence is self-refuting if (1) it refers to a group of things; (2) the statement or sentence itself is included in that group; (3) the statement or sentence does not satisfy its own requirements of acceptability.  For example, “All English sentences are shorter than three words” refers to the group of all English sentences; the sentence itself is a part of that group; and the sentence fails to satisfy its own requirements of acceptability. (It contains eight words and, thus, is not shorter than three words.) Strong scientism makes this self-refuting claim: “The only knowledge we can have about reality is that which has been properly tested in the hard sciences.” But this statement about reality is not itself one that has been properly tested in the hard sciences. So it cannot be a knowledge claim about reality. It is actually a claim of philosophy to the effect that all claims outside the hard sciences, including those of philosophy, cannot be known to be true. Strong scientism doesn’t live up to its own demands.

6. Weak scientism is a foe and not a friend of science. Science rests on a number of assumptions. For example, it takes for granted the laws of logic and math. It assumes the objectivity and rationality of the external world and that our faculties are suited for gaining knowledge of the external world; this includes its deep structure that lies underneath the everyday world of commonsense and causes that world to be what it is.  Science assumes the correspondence theory of truth: a mind-independent reality makes a belief or a claim true. When a claim doesn’t correspond to reality—like “Paris is the capital of Spain”—it is false. Notice that all of these assumptions cannot be formulated or tested within the limitations of science, especially the hard sciences. Yet every one of them has been challenged and rejected by many in the academic community. One of the tasks of philosophy is to formulate and defend the assumptions of science so that science’s claims can be taken as approximately true and rational. A theory, including scientific theories, can only be as strong as the assumptions on which it rests. By disregarding the rationality of philosophy, weak scientism disallows the clarification and defense of science’s assumptions. Thus, weak scientism is a foe and not a friend of science.

7. Contrary to scientism, we have more confident knowledge about certain theological or ethical truths than certain claims in science. Consider these two claims: (1) Electrons exist. (2) It is wrong to torture babies for the fun of it.  Which do we know with greater certainty? (2) is the correct answer. Why? The history of the electron has gone through various changes in what an electron is supposed to be. J. J. Thomson (1856-1940) at Cambridge University was the discoverer of electrons, but no one today believes that Thomsonian electrons exist because our views have changed so much. It is not unreasonable to believe that in 50 to 100 years, scientific depictions of the electron will change so much that scientists will no longer believe that what we mean by an electron today exists. Regarding (2)—the wrongness of torturing babies for the fun of it—someone may not know how she knows it is true, but nevertheless, we all, in fact, know it is true. If someone denies that, she needs therapy, not an argument. Now it is not hard to believe that in fifty to one hundred years, most people will no longer believe (2). But it is hard to see what kind of rational considerations could be discovered that would render (2) an irrational belief. Thus, we have more certainty in (2) than in (1). And the same is true for certain theological assertions such as that God exists.

8. There are five fundamental realities that science cannot explain but theism can. Theism affirms that an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God exists and has uniquely created a world distinct from himself. Theism also affirms that human beings bear the image of God, which confers on them dignity and worth. While science can help us to know much, there are some things it cannot explain—and is not properly equipped to explain. Science cannot account for (1) the origin of the universe, (2) the origin of the fundamental laws of nature, (3) the fine-tuning of the universe, (4) the origin of consciousness, and (5) the existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties. These features make sense if a powerful, intelligent, good, and supremely self-aware being exists--more so than if these are the products of mindless, deterministic, valueless, non-conscious processes.

9. Scientism gains strength from methodological naturalism. Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism affirms three major tenets. First, matter is all the reality there is (materialism). Second, all that occurs can be accounted for by physical processes preceding them going all the way back to the Big Bang (determinism). Third, all knowledge is derived from the scientific method (scientism). By contrast, methodological naturalism is the view that while doing science, explanations of phenomena must be limited to natural objects and natural laws. No appeal to the act of an agent or to personal explanation is allowed to explain a physical event. This means, for example, that Intelligent Design theories and the notion that God created the universe and all it contains is theology and has nothing to do with science. But like philosophical naturalism, methodological naturalism is also false. Consider the number of sciences that explain things by reference to the intentional act of a personal agent and not to a natural object or law. These include areas such as forensic science, archeology, neuroscience, SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence), psychology, and others. These considerations about scientism reveal both its power to marginalize belief in God as well as its deep flaws. This book is written to equip persons who confront the steady drumbeat of scientism that dismisses any claim that cannot be scientifically proven. This book alerts them to the dangers of scientism, pointing out its deficiencies and inherent contradictions. It also makes clear that theism—and the Christian faith more specifically—has strong explanatory power that can stand up under intellectual scrutiny. It can also challenge the leading ideologies of our day—including the powerful and influential view of scientism. Parents would be wise to prepare their children to engage the prevailing ideas of our culture. Scientism, which is the very foundation of our secular culture, cannot be sustained. Understanding the nature of scientism and exposing its inherent weaknesses and dangers should be a top priority for all seeking to engage our own culture and to influence the next generation.

Endnotes These insights are just an introduction. If you're ready to dive deeper, pick up a copy of Scientism and Secularism here. And since we get a commission on every sale, your purchase will help keep this newsletter free. * This is sponsored content

This newsletter is powered by Thinkr, a smart reading app for the busy-but-curious. For full access to hundreds of titles — including audio — go premium and download the app today. A tiny request: If you liked this post, please share this? I know most people don’t share because they feel that us bloggers don’t need their “tiny” social share. But here’s the truth… I built this blog piece by piece, one small share at a time, and will continue to do so. So thank you so much for your support, my reader. A share from you would seriously help a lot with the growth of this blog

Said in 1929--But Still Applicable to Some "Official Scientists" Today

 

This very unphilosophical irruption [of a scientist] into philosophy was, however, in one way enlightening. It threw a light backwards on the speaker's previous proclamation on things on which he has more right to speak. Even in those things he betrayed a curious simplicity common among such official scientists. The truth is that they become steadily less scientific and more official. They develop that thin disguise that is the daily wear of politicians. They perform before us the most artful tricks with the most artless transparency. It is like watching a child trying to hide something. They are perpetually trying to bluff us with big words and learned allusions; on the assumption that we have never learnt anything--even of their own funny little ways. Every leader-writer who thunders "Galileo" at us assumes that we know even less about Galileo than he does. Every preacher of popular science who throws a long word at us thinks we shall have to look it up in the dictionary and hopes we shall not study it seriously even in the encyclopaedia. Their use of science is rather like the use made of it by the heroes of certain adventure stories, in which the white men terrify the savages by predicting an eclipse or producing an electric shock. These are in a sense true demonstrations of science. They are in a sense right in saying that they are scientists. Where they are perhaps wrong is in supposing that we are savages.

–G. K. Chesterton, “The Mask of the Agnostic.” 

How do we know that Science is true?

How do we know that Science is true? How do we know that it I not merely true because culture says that it is true? How can anyone know what is true or false? How do you know that Science is not merely what culture makes of it? I am not anti-science! I am pro-truth! But what is true? What is false? Can science ever prove anything? Not all cultures acknowledge science! Don't those cultures count?

Golden ratio

Salvador dali golden ratio

Salvador dali

Definition of force

They don't usually define the word force in physics, but force is basically a desire toward motion! Usually we use the phrase a force! This means a push, pull, spin, shock, or impulse put on an object. We measure it in distance divided by time squared!

War on science? Pardon me, while I laugh!

War on science? A war on science? Science requires questions! Science requires questions about questioning everything! What matters is reality! You think that you can understand reality. You think that you can understand truth. Get real! You can not understand reality. Reality involves questions! Do you ever question your beliefs? Do you ever question what society supports? Not all cultures acknowledge science! They are into tribal council things! How dare you judge them! You and your western vapor worship! Worship of reason is worship of vapor! Reason is vapor! You go after it, and it leaves! Question every thought! Question every idea! What matters is truth!

Imagine a world with no real up not down

We wish you a Merry Darwin Day

We wish you a Merry Darwin Day
We wish you a Merry Darwin Day
We wish you a Merry Darwin Day and a Happy New Ape

Rational tidings we bring to you and your kin
We wish you a Merry Darwin Day and a Happy New Ape

Now bring us some pointless existence
Now bring us some pointless existence
Now bring us some pointless existence
Now bring some out here

Rational tidings we bring to you and your kin
We wish you a Merry Darwin Day and a Happy new Ape

We won't go until we get some
We won't go until we get some
We won't go until we get some, so bring some out here

Rational tidings we bring to you and your kin
We wish you a Merry Darwin Day and a Happy New Ape

We wish you a Merry Darwin Day
We wish you a Merry Darwin Day
We wish you a Merry Darwin Day and a Happy New Ape