MLism and being a Catholic

[Black_Rose]

I am consider myself a Catholic now (and no, I will not make any attempt to explicitly proselytize anyone) yet I still a Marxist-Leninist political weltanschauung. That itself is a testimony of the ideological coherence and power of MLism, but it also shows a lack of any credible alternatives in mainstream politics; I cannot revert to liberalism or social democracy (or be among the right) ever since I adopted an ML mindset.

The ideologies are inherently contradictory on social and political issues; for example, see CCC 1941 (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a3.htm):


Socio-economic problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a business, solidarity among nations and peoples. International solidarity is a requirement of the moral order; world peace depends in part upon this. This entry obviously condracts ML orthodoxy as it claims that genuine solidarity (as opposed to general appeasement through social welfare programs and short-term tactical alliances) among the rich and poor, while MLism encourages agitation and class consciousness among the oppressed, under the leadership of an ideologically orthodox and political savvy vanguard, to seize power for the oppressing classes. However, I will not attempt to reconcile the two ideologies here. (I currently find ML orthodoxy tenable, and I find CCC 1941 to be quite idealistic and quixotic and difficult to accept rationally, while, in contrast, I could easily support ML position on class consciousness with my repository of historical, political, economic facts from an ML framework.)

Yes, in some social contexts, religion can be an opiate for the masses that acts as an analgesic that prevents the oppressed classes from being aware of the exploitative nature of capitalism and the capitalist class whose economic self-interest sustains the system. The opioid effort of religion would purportedly preclude a sense of class consciousness, as that requires the working class to have a general awareness of the incorrigibly unjust and exploitative nature of the system, collectively articulate legitimate grievances, and a willingness to act in a concerted fashion to overthrow the system. However, other factors besides religion, cultivated by bourgeois society, such as consumerism, individualism, and political pluralism, also serve to alienate and atomize the masses (by diverting their attention to narrow, individual economic aspirations as opposed to broad class interests) and prevents them from attaining class consciousness.

In practice, I find little conflict with practicing Catholicism (attending Mass and praying) and Church dogma (what is articulated in various statements of faith such as the Nicene Creed). I am currently an ML defeatist since I do not think a revolution is possible in the medium term in the United States, nor do I find contemporary bourgeois democracy or the sentiments of the electorate to be fertile ground to advance any political agenda. This is tantamount political apathy and disinterest, since I possess no personal preference for any outcome of the electoral possess as the political institutions are controlled by the cosmopolitan bourgeoisie, but retain some interest and curiosity in observing the election as a political phenomenon from a detached perspective. I still have an interested in defending ML as an intellectual position against my fellow parishioners, but I have no intention of converting them. To me, it is just an intellectual exercise that is unlikely to significantly affect an external political process or practicing my faith.

[And yes, I respect the strident atheists among us would want to intellectually dismantle religion with their philosophical and empirical arguments (who also serve a practical purpose of being a moderating force against religious fundamentalism), but I find overt hostility towards religion to be politically unproductive. I simply respect the new atheist's desire (as individuals) to take pleasure in dominating their theistic adversaries, who are incapable of defending their own beliefs, during their debates.]

---
Some conservative Catholics encourage people to vote for Republicans who will at least hold the Democratic "culture of death" at bay. Fuck that! I rather just stay at home and puff a blunt during election day. At least I'll keep my moral and intellectual integrity.
---

Also, my signature is largely secular, despite it being a quotation from the Bible, as it does not directly state any tenet of faith. In the context of a radical left-wing forum, just regard the "lukewarm" as the liberals and social democrats who lack the determination and resolve of the communists to abolish capitalism. It was (and still is) my favorite quotation when I was an agnostic.

[Prometeo liberado]

All I can tell you is that if Christ were a defeatist you would have no religion. I wont go into the many contradictions inherent in the Catholic doctrine as they pertain to Marxism. But what I can tell you is that sitting around to "puff a blunt" is not a revolutionary or christian thing to do as the spectre of austerity looms ever closer to a further enslavement of the working class. But as a ML and Catholic I'm sure you already knew this. Pretty sure.

[Ocean Seal]

Dude relax you don't have to appease or rationalize your religious choices before anyone especially not a internet community.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Well,I have read some radical things from The Catholic Worker...

[Koba Junior]

Marxism-Leninism provides a solid basis for becoming atheist, so, you know, just something to consider.

[Sir Comradical]

Jettison the Catholicism. The way, the truth, and the light is Marxism.

[#FF0000]

this thread makes me miss franz

[Yuppie Grinder]

Your Catholicism is completely at odds with materialism.

[Black_Rose]

Marxism-Leninism provides a solid basis for becoming atheist, so, you know, just something to consider.

Really? I bet you were already an atheist before you were an ML. If so, how did MLism strengthen your atheist worldview? There are other philosophical views that are atheistic that aren't politically anti-capitalist, such as Objectivism.

MLism, in general, opposes religion for political purposes because it is perceived to numb the masses political and economic awareness, thus discouraging class conscientiousness among the exploited classes. Anti-religious Marxist-Leninists do not oppose organized religion simply because they consider it endorsing a false belief system; it is opposed because they believe organized religion interferes and delays the revolutionary process.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

Really? I bet you were already an atheist before you were an ML. If so, how did MLism strengthen your atheist worldview? There are other philosophical views that support atheism that isn't politically anti-capitalist.

Marxism's materialism is what strengthens your atheistic worldview. I would say materialism is inseparable from Marxism, and thus from Marxism-Leninism as well.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Your Catholicism is completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with your politics per se, you can be a Catholic and a comrade. You make it sound like you're trying to choose between to faiths.

Not to mention, with the state things are in today, I don't know how you can hold any defeatist views. This isn't the 1950s anymore.

[The Young Pioneer]

So, OP posts and says personal beliefs openly, promising not to proselytise, admits that organised religion has had negative effects on the masses, and what STILL happens? Jerks arrive as usual to proselytise atheism and condescend towards someone for having beliefs that, if not atheist, aren't befitting of a Marxist?

:thumbdown:

I have a feeling after a revolution some of you would just stack churches full of potato sacks. Again.


OP- I salute you, comrade.

[Zealot]

Sorry Comrade but Catholicism is in direct contradiction with materialism and the Catholic Church has made frequent, rabid attacks on the working class movement. Personally I think you can be both if you are well-intentioned but if you are a rational person you would be wise to give up the opium. You yourself have shown a quote from Catholic dogma that is idealistic, counter-revolutionary and at odds with the materialist dialectic. Socio-economic problems can only be solved by solidarity between the rich and poor, employee and employer? Let me tell you where I've read that:


We have constituted a Corporative and Fascist state, the state of national society, a State which concentrates, controls, harmonizes and tempers the interests of all social classes, which are thereby protected in equal measure. - Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism.

I studied Theology for two years in a Catholic seminary before I dropped out and took up Marxism so if you're up for debate on the anti-revolutionary dogma and nature (Trinity, God, Bible etc.) of Catholicism, I'll present arms. However, I'll venture to guess that your conviction is mostly a tickled emotional feeling as opposed to a rational consideration. I find those types of conversions to be quite foolish but it's cool and, like everyone else has said here, you don't need to choose between this or that or answer for yourself on an internet forum. But I don't believe that attacking religion is "politically unproductive"; far from it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Sorry Comrade but Catholicism is in direct contradiction with materialism

Debatable.


and the Catholic Church has made frequent, rabid attacks on the working class movement.

Unfortunate but not inherent or irrevocably true.


You yourself have shown a quote from Catholic dogma that is idealistic, counter-revolutionary and at odds with the materialist dialectic.

Not everyone suffers from the mental disorder known as Hegelianism comrade.


I studied Theology for two years in a Catholic seminary before I dropped out and took up Marxism so if you're up for debate on the anti-revolutionary dogma and nature (Trinity, God, Bible etc.) of Catholicism, I'll present arms. However, I'll venture to guess that your conviction is mostly a tickled emotional feeling as opposed to a rational consideration. I find those types of conversions to be quite foolish but it's cool and, like everyone else has said here, you don't need to choose between this or that or answer for yourself on an internet forum. But I don't believe that attacking religion is "politically unproductive"; far from it.

It is politically counterproductive considering you risk alienating whole giant sections of the working class who are religious. It's not as simple as merely an "emotional tickle," and can be a conscious and rational philosophical conviction just as Communist mysticism or Diamat. Further, there have been numerous comrades whom have been religious and even Catholic, like Dorothy Day comes immediately to mind as does Leo Tolstoy. When it comes right down to it, religion is irrelevant provided it's a private matter (which it is).

I also don't think it's impossible for a religious person to hold X philosophy while at the same time maintaining a legitimate materialist and historical materialist view of the world. I don't think one necessarily negates the other. Further, the opium bit I feel is an ill used and often mistaken use of what Marx actually was getting at. I personally am not religious, really more so superstitious in perhaps an occult sense but I think it's all to easy for Atheists to just write off religious people and talk with air of arrogance like their inherently at some philosophically superior level than the rest when in actuality the only people that could probably do that is Agnostics.

My two pence.

[Book O'Dead]

I am consider myself a Catholic now (and no, I will not make any attempt to explicitly proselytize anyone) yet I still a Marxist-Leninist political weltanschauung. That itself is a testimony of the ideological coherence and power of MLism, but it also shows a lack of any credible alternatives in mainstream politics; I cannot revert to liberalism or social democracy (or be among the right) ever since I adopted an ML mindset.


Don't feel bad. Your "MLism" is perfectly compatible with Catholicism; "MLism", as displayed in this forum, is a religion, as plagued by superstition as the Pope's Christianism.

[Yefim Zverev]

Catholic Church is in the center of capitalist system so. Marxism and Catholicism are in absolute contradiction. Church benefits from the system and is also a part of the system.

Church has the power to stop all wars by sending 1 billion of its believers to war zones and stop all the wars but does not so instead it keeps people idle. Pope makes political anti-war speeches which are completely in the system and have no use at all. Those speeches are there to preserve persuasiveness.

Catholicism has always been a tool like any other religion against Marxism.

Church has companies, investments, own laborers, nuns which cook for priests and they are only paid by god. :confused:

[Azraella]

Because it really needs to be said: ontological materialism is not the fucking materialism of Marx.

That is all.

[Prometeo liberado]

There is a huge disconnect between the Pope's Church and the real lives of poor catholics. One is exclusive of the other. If the situation warranted it and the Pope found himself surrounded by a commie world he sure as shit would start preaching whatever it took to keep him and his living in the fashion that they have become used to. That said, as you delve deeper into ML you'll come to the conclusion that, yes the suffering of man is not caused by a mystic force but the collective ongoing war of organized capital against the working class. Second, that if there were a god it would have done something long ago. Or it just hates you and gets off on all this suffering. I'd play the odds and dump organized religion. Put your faith in yourself.

[bots]

this thread makes me miss franz

What happened to Franz?

Also OP, how into catholicism are you? Do you believe in the virgin birth, heaven and hell, Jesus walking on water and stuff, or is it more a cultural thing for you?

[homegrown terror]

you may not see it, but the pope is a king (perhaps THE king) and kings must be killed or dethroned in order for men to be men. of all the churches out there, be the socially liberal or socially conservative, the catholic church, due to it's system of entrenched hierarchy, is the most destructive and counterproductive to any kind of forward progress of humankind.

[Zealot]

It is politically counterproductive considering you risk alienating whole giant sections of the working class who are religious.

I'm not just attacking, I'm offering discussion and debate. Most certainly, I don't consider myself part of the idealistic "New Atheist" movement that reminds one of the Young Hegelians with their stupid claims that religion is the "root of all evil".


It's not as simple as merely an "emotional tickle," and can be a conscious and rational philosophical conviction just as Communist mysticism or Diamat. Further, there have been numerous comrades whom have been religious and even Catholic, like Dorothy Day comes immediately to mind as does Leo Tolstoy.

I think it most probably is an emotional tickle. She/he admits the following:

- Marxism-Leninism and Catholicism "are inherently contradictory on social and political issues".

- Religion can "be an opiate for the masses that acts as an analgesic"

- There is "little conflict with practicing Catholicism (attending Mass and praying) and Church dogma" which I can only guess means that he/she practices Christianity but has no attachment to its dogma.

Overall, my impression is that they have basically admitted to practicing a religion that has irrational and anti-revolutionary beliefs. So the only other thing I could think of was an "emotional tickle".


When it comes right down to it, religion is irrelevant provided it's a private matter (which it is).

The Socialist state will allow the freedom of religion while at the same time funding the spread of Atheistic propaganda. This is when we'll see whether religion is really a private matter for our religious Comrades.


I personally am not religious, really more so superstitious in perhaps an occult sense but I think it's all to easy for Atheists to just write off religious people and talk with air of arrogance like their inherently at some philosophically superior level than the rest when in actuality the only people that could probably do that is Agnostics.

My two pence.

Actually I haven't written religious people off here at all. I offered a debate and provided some solid reasons why Catholicism is anti-revolutionary and if they don't believe in Catholic dogma then I have to wonder why they consider themselves Catholic in the first place.

[Robespierres Neck]

As other MLs on this thread mentioned: Catholicism isn't materialist. In the eyes of history, the Catholic church... well... I don't think I need to get into it.

[Black_Rose]

All I can tell you is that if Christ were a defeatist you would have no religion. I wont go into the many contradictions inherent in the Catholic doctrine as they pertain to Marxism. But what I can tell you is that sitting around to "puff a blunt" is not a revolutionary or christian thing to do as the spectre of austerity looms ever closer to a further enslavement of the working class. But as a ML and Catholic I'm sure you already knew this. Pretty sure.

A cursory analysis of the American political environment would lead one to conclude that the prospects for a revolution within the US to be dismal. The influence of nationalism and consumerism on the working class, not to mention the pervasive control of the elites on the media and political institutions, would render significant political reforms, much less a revolution, highly improbable. The system itself and the sentiments of the working class obviously don't make the US conducive to a revolution in the short and medium term.

To me, the only hope is the disintegration or collapse of the US military apparatus and economic influence to impose the policies of neoliberal globalization against the interests of other nations and cultures. Perhaps, that would leave an opportunity for other nations to pursue left-wing economic policies without the officious yoke of the US.

However, I do not believe it is productive to actively discourage anyone from changing the system, even though I think such attempts are futile.
----


However, I'll venture to guess that your conviction is mostly a tickled emotional feeling as opposed to a rational consideration.Godfather/Exoprism might have a legitimate point that my religiosity is merely an "emotional tickle". Perhaps one reason why I am attracted to religion is my realization that human intellect, institutions, and collective political effort have and will fail to bring about social, technological, or political progress (in other words this is a rejection of progressive/meliorative materialism), thus it would be better for one to focus on perdurable treasures in Heaven, instead of fleeting terrestrial pleasure, wealth, power, and honor on Earth. (As for pleasure, smoking the blunt on election day would symbolize my facetious disregard of bourgeois democracy, rather than being a means of attaining a high.)

I wrote this in 2010 (when I was an agnostic and when my political views were welfare statist/social democratic) and I find it pertinent here:


Yet I cannot find refuge and immigrate to the City of God due to my lack of faith in the existence of an anthropomorphic benevolent deity and rejection the claims of religious revelation because of its incompatibility with my empirical observations. But would not an omniscient deity sympathize with my honest epistemic obligation to reject blind faith and remain skeptical due to limitations in my knowledge, or is my insistence on exercising my mental faculties through the epistemological framework of empiricism, which may occlude my perception of God’s presence and his divine grace, a manifestation of pride that would condemn me to damnation? But religion does not have a monopoly on faith, since optimism in the progress of science and technology represents a faith promising the eventual salvation from the ailments of this world, just like the belief that Jesus’ incarnation, death, and purported Resurrection provides manumission from sin and death, while offering hope for eternal life with the Father. In order to maintain intellectual honesty, one has to make a concession acknowledging the alluring risk-reward proposition of religious faith. Against the contrast of the unfulfilling vapidity of material pursuits, isn’t better for one to accumulate treasures in Heaven instead of amassing fleeting assets on this world, even while discounting the possibility of eternal punishment? How can one resist the temptation of cynical nihilism when rejecting the promises of technology and religion? ---
Some of my priest's homilies also expresses this strand of thinking:

(I posted this on another thread)

Jesus (and Paul [Romans 13]) implicitly supported the passive acceptance of the legitimacy of Roman Rule, and nothing in their teaching can be construed as endorsing a revolution by ousting terrestrial authorities to replace them with a more just/favorable/competent system or ruler.

I've attended Mass for a few months, and one salient message that the priest gives during the homilies is the Jews were disappointed with Jesus (as the messiah) since he did not intend to deliver the Jews from Roman tyranny; instead Jesus' mission was to emancipate humans from sin. It seems like a nice, politically correct hermeneutic of the Gospel, since it doesn't endorse any contemporary political agenda. (Although next the to the Church bulletins, there was a stack of papers soliciting donations to Rick Santorum during the noon Mass of the Sunday before Palm Sunday. I had the temptation to discard them, and if Father caught me, I would just reply that I should be allowed to place pamphlets criticizing capitalism and US imperialism. :) )

----



Also OP, how into catholicism are you? Do you believe in the virgin birth, heaven and hell, Jesus walking on water and stuff, or is it more a cultural thing for you?

Yes, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, Heaven and Hell, and the various miracles in order to be orthodox.

[bots]

Yes, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, Heaven and Hell, and the various miracles in order to be orthodox.

What does that mean? Like deep down in your heart you actually believe these things are possible? I just don't understand how anybody who has a cursory understanding of modern science can actually believe this stuff. If you're doing it so they don't kick you out of the club or whatever that's one thing but really?

If you don't actually believe it you have to admit you're being dishonest with yourself. If you do actually believe it then shit, I don't think anybody can convince you about anything re: MLism and Catholicism since you've already essentially rejected rational discourse.

[Per Levy]

just a general message to all here: just because someone believes in a god, in something like an afterlife doesnt mean that you cant be commie. also just because someone is a catholic doesnt mean that the person in question is the same or hold the same views as the catholic church. really i met atheists who were fucking assholes and religious people who i could call a comrade, what you belive in doesnt matter.

[Per Levy]

What happened to Franz?

banned.


Don't feel bad. Your "MLism" is perfectly compatible with Catholicism; "MLism", as displayed in this forum, is a religion, as plagued by superstition as the Pope's Christianism.

jup very true, at least some MLs really are into some kind of politcal religion as was proven in this thread. or i remember a couple of months back when ismael was literaly singing the gospel of marxism-leninism, and still a lot of others on here do as well. not al MLs are like this though.

[Zealot]

Jesus (and Paul [Romans 13]) implicitly supported the passive acceptance of the legitimacy of Roman Rule, and nothing in their teaching can be construed as endorsing a revolution by ousting terrestrial authorities to replace them with a more just/favorable/competent system or ruler.

I've attended Mass for a few months, and one salient message that the priest gives during the homilies is the Jews were disappointed with Jesus (as the messiah) since he did not intend to deliver the Jews from Roman tyranny; instead Jesus' mission was to emancipate humans from sin. It seems like a nice, politically correct hermeneutic of the Gospel, since it doesn't endorse any contemporary political agenda. (Although next the to the Church bulletins, there was a stack of papers soliciting donations to Rick Santorum during the noon Mass of the Sunday before Palm Sunday. I had the temptation to discard them, and if Father caught me, I would just reply that I should be allowed to place pamphlets criticizing capitalism and US imperialism. :) )

In fact, it's entirely possible to conclude that Jesus was actually killed for sedition. Josephus himself expresses in Antiquities of the Jews that John the Baptist was beheaded for this very reason. It's also possible to interpret the final days of Jesus as a last-ditch attempt at provoking a rebellion e.g. He tells his disciples to buys swords, sets up two lines of defence at the Garden of Gethsemane with his disciples and goes to pray, only telling them to put away their swords after realising that they're outnumbered.

Some have tried to whitewash this story by saying that the disciples were using "spiritual swords" which is odd because, in that case, we would have to assume that it was these spiritual swords that lopped off the ear of the high priest's servant.


Yes, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, Heaven and Hell, and the various miracles in order to be orthodox.

I was under the impression that you didn't actually buy into that side of it. I'm guessing you also believe that Mary purified herself after giving birth to god, that this god was later circumcised, tempted by Satan and that your god also has trouble knowing what the seasons are (I'm here referring to the story of the fig tree where Jesus sees it in the distance but, on closer inspection, finds only leaves, which Mark solemnly tells us was because it "was not the season for figs". He then goes into a fit of rage and destroys the fig tree).

Well, at least the NT god is a little more peaceful than the OT god who makes Hitler look like a Boy Scout. The Bible, even the New Testament, advocates a theocratic dictatorship and I'm very interested about how you reconcile this sum total of reactionary filth with the revolutionary working class movement.

[homegrown terror]

Yes, I do believe in the Virgin Birth, Heaven and Hell, and the various miracles in order to be orthodox.

do you believe in dinosaurs? if not, where did their bones come from? and why is there no mention of them in the bible? were they born, existed, and died in the five days before adam? or were they put there by god to "test man's faith", put there by satan to mislead man, or are they actually the skeletons of lucifer's angels, frozen in time as they fell from the heavens? i've heard people tell me all these "theories," so i'd be interested to know which you subscribe to.

[Azraella]

do you believe in dinosaurs? if not, where did their bones come from? and why is there no mention of them in the bible? were they born, existed, and died in the five days before adam? or were they put there by god to "test man's faith", put there by satan to mislead man, or are they actually the skeletons of lucifer's angels, frozen in time as they fell from the heavens? i've heard people tell me all these "theories," so i'd be interested to know which you subscribe to.


Don't be a dick. Genesis is a metaphor for pre-civilization and humanity's evolution from an animal to something more than that. The Cain and Abel story is actually about the evils of civilization.

[Black_Rose]

do you believe in dinosaurs? if not, where did their bones come from? and why is there no mention of them in the bible? were they born, existed, and died in the five days before adam? or were they put there by god to "test man's faith", put there by satan to mislead man, or are they actually the skeletons of lucifer's angels, frozen in time as they fell from the heavens? i've heard people tell me all these "theories," so i'd be interested to know which you subscribe to.
Don't be a dick... I'm not Carl Everett. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Everett#Controversy)

[Black_Rose]

What does that mean? Like deep down in your heart you actually believe these things are possible? I just don't understand how anybody who has a cursory understanding of modern science can actually believe this stuff. If you're doing it so they don't kick you out of the club or whatever that's one thing but really?

If you don't actually believe it you have to admit you're being dishonest with yourself. If you do actually believe it then shit, I don't think anybody can convince you about anything re: MLism and Catholicism since you've already essentially rejected rational discourse.

I mean that in order to be a Catholic, I must actually believe in the dogma* in its totality with my mind, heart, and soul, rather than selectively choosing the most palatable portions.

* There is a difference between dogma and doctrine. Anti-communism is not Church dogma, although it is the doctrine in the catechism.

[homegrown terror]

sorry guys, that's just 18 years of being a coerced catholic coming out and all the resentment from it.

[Azraella]

sorry guys, that's just 18 years of being a coerced catholic coming out and all the resentment from it.


Totally understandable.

I don't like being forced into beliefs either.

[bots]

I mean that in order to be a Catholic, I must actually believe in the dogma* in its totality with my mind, heart, and soul, rather than selectively choosing the most palatable portions.

* There is a difference between dogma and doctrine. Anti-communism is not Church dogma, although it is the doctrine in the catechism.

OK good luck!

[Black_Rose]

I just don't understand how anybody who has a cursory understanding of modern science can actually believe this stuff. If you're doing it so they don't kick you out of the club or whatever that's one thing but really?

What do you mean? Are you saying that embracing materialism is necessary for a Marxist economic worldview, or that the materialism of science naturally forces one not to believe in supernatural entities?

My main concern in this thread was addressing the ostensible compartmentalization of my beliefs. I had a conversation with an acquaintance (one of my professors I had in college), and she said most of the religious scientists she knew tend to compartmentalize their lives. I was wondering if I was experiencing this.

I have an appreciation of science since I have some degree of mastery in my intellectual domain (molecular biology), much more than merely being able to recite metabolic pathways and signal transduction cascades. I can say that most observable microscopic and macroscopic biological phenomenon, however complex, can be reduced to chemical and thermodynamic processes. Friedrich Wohler's landmark synthesis of urea, a chemical that was only before found in living organism, from ammonium cyanate (an inorganic reagent) was a harbinger of the unification of chemistry and biology, since it rendered a "vital force" operating solely within the realm of biology extraneous and showed the material continuity between the biological and chemical worlds. Yes, there is no need to invoke the supernatural divine caprice or will in order to explain and understand biological (and natural) phenomenon, since they can be ultimately reduced to the (both deterministic and stochastic) laws of physics that determine the interactions and behavior of matter, energy, and spacetime. The success of this reductionism in explaining observation phenomenon would supposedly exclude the activities of the supernatural operating in the universe, and provide credence for the view that the only relevant phenomenon are those that can be reduced to the principles of physics.

To my knowledge, there is no corpus of knowledge in that field that directly contradicts the existence of a personal god although there is little evidence that would affirm the existence of personal God. While I was an agnostic, my main argument against the existence of a benevolent God was the problem of evil, demonstrated through the Epicurean paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Epicurus), that supposedly illustrated the irreconcilability of the existence of evil with an omnipotent and benevolent God.

---

Indeed, one of the integral components of modern science is methodological naturalism, which is similar, although distinct from metaphysical naturalism. Presumably, the "materialism" referred to in this thread is metaphysical naturalism, and it is often called the dysphemism "scientism". However, the legacy of success of applied methodological naturalism in elucidating natural phenomenon and in giving humans a degree of mastery over the natural world does not necessarily lead one to the philosophical conclusion of metaphysical naturalism. Many theologians, particularly Thomas Aquinas, although acknowledge that faith and religion are disparate domains, argue that they also complement each other.

In fact, religious people have made significant contributions to methodological naturalism: for instance, William of Okham, a Franciscan friar, advocated the principle of parsimony, now eponymously called "Occam's razor. Characteristic of the austerity of the Franciscan order, the principle states that one should favor a hypothesis with fewest unsupported assumptions over other competing hypotheses (if they possess similar explanatory power and are consistent with the known data) with more assumptions. This does not guarantee the "simplest" hypothesis is correct since the razor is just an epistemological heuristic as there is no logical necessity that the "simplest" hypothesis would be correct. Even the proper application of the razor has the potential to excise the best hypothesis. Statistical hypothesis testing utilizes the razor (along with invaluable principle of falsification). For a given set of quantitative data, the default (or null) hypothesis is that the data is the merely the consequence of random process -- a quotidian hypothesis requiring no extraordinary assumptions. Due to the inherent preference for the "simplest" hypothesis as mandated by Occam's razor, it becomes the onus of those espousing an alternative hypothesis to provide evidence against the null hypothesis by demonstrating the statistical improbability of the null hypothesis (often with a sexily low p-value). (The alternative hypothesis in this sense is a generic set, not a specific hypothesis, that encompasses all possible hypotheses that are consistent with the data, and they must be further evaluated and examined.) Again, this process is imperfect as it suffers occasionally from false positives and negatives, type-one and two errors respectively.

---

I know I did not answer your question satisfactorily (and I may continue when I get back since I have more thoughts on the subject), but I will prepare to go to Mass now.

[bots]

What do you mean? Are you saying that embracing materialism is necessary for a Marxist economic worldview,

Yes.


or that the materialism of science naturally forces one not to believe in supernatural entities?

Sort of. I wouldn't say the materialism of science "naturally" forces anyone to do anything. There are a lot of people that make pretty supernatural conclusions after coming into contact with certain scientific concepts. Hippy dippy new agers (Fritjof Capra, Daniel Pinchbeck) love taking parts of quantum physics and extrapolating that these theories prove that ancient Indian mystics really did have microscopic vision or that some kind of quantum consciousness exists.


My main concern in this thread was addressing the ostensible compartmentalization of my beliefs. I had a conversation with an acquaintance (one of my professors I had in college), and she said most of the religious scientists she knew tend to compartmentalize their lives. I was wondering if I was experiencing this.

I really don't know you that well sorry!


Indeed, one of the integral components of modern science is methodological naturalism, which is similar, although distinct from metaphysical naturalism. Presumably, the "materialism" referred to in this thread is metaphysical naturalism, and it is often called the dysphemism "scientism". However, the legacy of success of applied methodological naturalism in elucidating natural phenomenon and in giving humans a degree of mastery over the natural world does not necessarily lead one to the philosophical conclusion of metaphysical naturalism. Many theologians, particularly Thomas Aquinas, although acknowledge that faith and religion are disparate domains, argue that they also complement each other.

Yes but I think people who should know better, ie people who have acquired the knowledge to take the leap to metaphysical naturalism and refuse to abandon old superstitions due to whatever psychological reasons prevent them from doing so are living in a kind of Sartrean "bad faith".