Regarding the intellectual level of theologians.

[Rafiq]

I'm appalled. You see, some prominent Muslim theologan attempted to explain Historical materialism, as seen here: http://www.ahl-ul-bayt.org/en.php/page,7171Unit14321.html?PHPSESSID=838ec82b033f17f6 25cfab139724b284

I was a bit... Impressed? Of course he couldn't fully understand historical materialism, but I never knew that theologians could articulate things of that nature. What really puzzled me, is the ways in which he attempted to explain it, being quite obvious that he has a slight idea of what historical materialism is, and when he's finished, he offers a dose of criticism. These criticisms are pathetic, of course, for example "Marx sais that ideas which are not products of class are meaningless for social change, but what about our rise to power (he was Iranian), of the crusades, etc. etc." which is quite easy to address for any Marxist, for example, it's easy to understand that there was, for one, no revolution in Iran, just a slight change in the political structure which protects the Iranian bourgeoisie, and that it could be argued that it was a retaliation on behalf of the national Iranian petite bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie ("patriotic" bourgeoisie), in retaliation against the proletarian movement etc.

Another stupid point he makes is: "Wew, uhhh, see, Marx never took into account solidarity with the proletarian class among the bourgeoisie themselves, as a matter of fact, Marx was a member of the elite class and benefited from their education" while any Marxist, exemplified by kautsky, knows that the sciences of according societies are independent of a definite class character and are only accessible by the intelligentsia, and that proletarian consciousness cannot develop spontaneously but (in it's final stage) from the non-proletarian intelligentsia.

But aside from all of that, he still was able to form a half semi decent notion of an obscure version of historical materialism, which surprised me. Made be a bit cynical as well, maybe the guy didn't believe his own bullshit and made the piece as a propagandist.

But theologians in general, ranging from the pressuposionalists to the pseudo-scientific spiritualists, have not been fully academically disinigrated, which saddens me greatly. And at that, say what you will of that fool.. His name.... Ah yes, Alan woods, say what you will of him, he made a point in his famous and controversial text: "reason in revolt". The point was that idealists of all backgrounds, religious fanatics and the likes, have infiltrated the sciences of the western world. Every day that becomes more and more apparent to me.

So... Discuss.

[hatzel]

I have literally no idea why you would think that theologians - who, let's remember, tend to dedicate their whole lives to studying complex theoretical texts - would be utterly clueless about...well, all theoretical ideas other than those they personally espouse. Kind of seems like a laughable assumption, and all the more laughable given how offended the mere suggestion seems to make you...

Oh and by the way, if " idealists of all backgrounds, religious fanatics and the likes, have infiltrated the sciences of the western world," it's not because they've 'infiltrated' it (which would seem to suggest some kind of invasion, as if they are inherently foreign to the field), but because 'the sciences of the western world' (whatever that's supposed to mean) aren't exactly structured in such a way as to exclude such people, let's just say. Nor would it be particularly useful if they were, as I can't see why somebody should have to pass some kind of (pretty arbitrary) ideological applicability test before busying oneself with something which, last time I checked, claimed to deal exclusively with objective truth. No amount of ideological impurity on the part of the observer can pervert the supposedly indisputable findings of the true scientific method, surely...? Demanding such measures would effectively debase 'the sciences of the western world,' as it would constitute a very solid confession that the scientists' claims to objectivity, and the resulting neutrality of their fields, are no longer defensible, in turn exposing 'the sciences of the western world' as subjective and ideological. A claim many (myself included) would be more than happy making, but the altogether untouchable position of the sciences (in the broadest possible sense) in modern society is very obviously tied up with its claims of infallibility and neutrality, and as such such an admission of subjectivity - as necessarily implied by the suggestion of an idealistic 'infiltration' - is incompatible with a partisan defense of the authority and legitimacy of the scientific method, and the possibility of a scientific comprehension of reality.

[Questionable]

This is a bit off-topic but something you said confuses me.


while any Marxist, exemplified by kautsky, knows that the sciences of according societies are independent of a definite class character and are only accessible by the intelligentsia, and that proletarian consciousness cannot develop spontaneously but (in it's final stage) from the non-proletarian intelligentsia.

Are social sciences independent of any class content, or are you saying that the mere knowledge of them is? Lenin himself said that there could be no impartial social science in a society based on class struggle. Nikolai Bukharin also wrote extensively on the issue of proletarian vs. bourgeois social science. If you're saying that the acquisition of such knowledge is independent of class then I understand.

[Rafiq]

I have literally no idea why you would think that theologians - who, let's remember, tend to dedicate their whole lives to studying complex theoretical texts - would be utterly clueless about...well, all theoretical ideas other than those they personally espouse. Kind of seems like a laughable assumption, and all the more laughable given how offended the mere suggestion seems to make you...

So, he spends his life studying complex theoretical texts, but not on a very complex level. I can't say much about other theologians, but the Iranian clergy is incapable of articulating their religious texts beyond merely stating "well here he means that killing someone for sorcery isn't okay", etc. instead of, you know, trying to find an actual, real, meaning, a dimension, if you will, that is on an unconscious level. I understand that there are a lot of religious users here and if I've offended anyone I apologize, I don't mean to create any tension or hostility. But I was never under the impression the religious users on here dedicated their entire lives to serve their faith in such a way.. Alright, I'll admit, I acted like a jackass. But I don't know, I'm a bit fucked over the head today.


Oh and by the way, if " idealists of all backgrounds, religious fanatics and the likes, have infiltrated the sciences of the western world," it's not because they've 'infiltrated' it (which would seem to suggest some kind of invasion, as if they are inherently foreign to the field), but because 'the sciences of the western world' (whatever that's supposed to mean) aren't exactly structured in such a way as to exclude such people, let's just say.

Well, I understand why there could be some confusion here. I didn't mean to say it like that. My point, though, is that, with the ideological regression begging in the late 1980's, the sciences in the western world are and were no exception, and, 'let's just say' many brutal vulgarizations of the sciences were made as a result of not personal dedication to the scientific method, but to the ideological strengthening of certain religious convictions. Dawkins, of course, whom has no decent understanding of the dynamic function of religion and it's origin, has made several offenses in the field of biology for a reason.


Nor would it be particularly useful if they were, as I can't see why somebody should have to pass some kind of (pretty arbitrary) ideological applicability test before busying oneself with something which, last time I checked, claimed to deal exclusively with objective truth.

They wouldn't, of course. But what must be analyzed... Which hasn't, very well at least, and critically receipted is not their participation in the sciences, but their findings.


No amount of ideological impurity on the part of the observer can pervert the supposedly indisputable findings of the true scientific method, surely...?

I wouldn't be so sure. It's the way in which the information is expressed and recorded that counts, not some kind of objective observation. And, really, there's no conspiracy here. I do not at all mean to say that there is some kind of problem with religious people joining the scientific community, but there is definitely ideological regression when we have people say that, for example, there exists scientific miracles in the koran as a result of such findings, etc., or express their findings in an obscure way, leading them to several different conclusions, etc


Demanding such measures would effectively debase 'the sciences of the western world,' as it would constitute a very solid confession that the scientists' claims to objectivity, and the resulting neutrality of their fields, are no longer defensible, in turn exposing 'the sciences of the western world' as subjective and ideological.

Well, there is of course a reason as to why we call (these vulgarizations) psuedosciences, and, the pseudosciences are indeed quite subjective.

[Rafiq]

This is a bit off-topic but something you said confuses me.



Are social sciences independent of any class content, or are you saying that the mere knowledge of them is? Lenin himself said that there could be no impartial social science in a society based on class struggle. Nikolai Bukharin also wrote extensively on the issue of proletarian vs. bourgeois social science. If you're saying that the acquisition of such knowledge is independent of class then I understand.

The sciences are not subjective, and it was Lenin who stressed this. Lenin made it quite apparent that those who had said historical materialism was the "understanding of history from a proletarian perspective" were full of shit, and that, historical materialism, as a science, was not subjective. I don't know, there can indeed be different theories which are constituted as social sciences by many. Idealist "social science" isn't a science at all, really.

[Questionable]

The sciences are not subjective, and it was Lenin who stressed this. Lenin made it quite apparent that those who had said historical materialism was the "understanding of history from a proletarian perspective" were full of shit, and that, historical materialism, as a science, was not subjective. I don't know, there can indeed be different theories which are constituted as social sciences by many. Idealist "social science" isn't a science at all, really.

It is true that historical materialism is an objective fact that is happening whether people acknowledge it or don't, but bourgeois scientists can still distort, misinterpret, or ignore it to promote their own interests.

[Rafiq]

It is true that historical materialism is an objective fact that is happening whether people acknowledge it or don't, but bourgeois scientists can still distort, misinterpret, or ignore it to promote their own interests.

Indeed, they can, but sciences poisoned with ideology are pseudosciences. But even then, rhetorically, there may be some bourgeois influence, for example, in Darwin or Freud. But on a larger scale such an influence becomes irrelevant to the actual useful contents of their works. Just look at the Freudo Marxists or Marx's obsession with Darwin.

[Luís Henrique]

Indeed, they can, but sciences poisoned with ideology are pseudosciences.

According to Marx, the dominant ideas of a given time are the ideas of its dominant class. How is something supposed to be devoid of any ideological content?

Pseudoscience is a different thing altogether. Basically it is the use of scientific jargon, or more generally the "appearance" of science where there is none. Some fields obviously qualify: Astrology, Memetics, Evolutionary Psychology, Marginalist Economics. And some of them are quite evidently "poisoned" by ideology (Evolutionary Psychology, Marginalist Economics), but that is not what makes them pseudosciences (rather, the fact that they assume what has to be proven - that human psychological traits are genetically hereditary, that value is a function of use value, respectively).


But even then, rhetorically, there may be some bourgeois influence, for example, in Darwin or Freud. But on a larger scale such an influence becomes irrelevant to the actual useful contents of their works. Just look at the Freudo Marxists or Marx's obsession with Darwin.

Bourgeois ideology has no problem with Darwinian evolution (or with Newtonian or Einstenian physics, Mendelian genetics, or thermodynamics). It does have a lot of problems with Freudian psychology. But this is besides the point of their scientific value or lack thereof (bourgeois ideology has lots of problems with Homeopathy, or Ptolomaic astronomy, or the Labour Theory of value; that doesn't put these things in the same league nor says anything about their respective scientific value).

Marx was wrong about many things, especially where he was out of his depth. Take his acritical praise of a crank named Trémaux, for instance. His obsession with Darwin has little to do with his work in economics, and little to do with the scientific value of evolutionary biology.

The Freudo-Marxists were not Freud. They understandably tried to juxtapose or synthetise the contributions of those who are arguably the most important thinkers of the century between the little French revolution and WWII. With little success, may I add; Marxism and psychoanalysis remain fundamentally alien to each other and seem, from many points of view, radically incompatible.

Luís Henrique

[Manic Impressive]

Another stupid point he makes is: "Wew, uhhh, see, Marx never took into account solidarity with the proletarian class among the bourgeoisie themselves, as a matter of fact, Marx was a member of the elite class and benefited from their education" while any Marxist, exemplified by kautsky, knows that the sciences of according societies are independent of a definite class character and are only accessible by the intelligentsia, and that proletarian consciousness cannot develop spontaneously but (in it's final stage) from the non-proletarian intelligentsia.

Hahahaha do you actually think that? Fucking hell man. Does this mean you consider yourself to be a part of the intelligentsia?

As a great Marxist once said students are only capable of Leninist consciousness.

[Rafiq]

Hahahaha do you actually think that? Fucking hell man. Does this mean you consider yourself to be a part of the intelligentsia?

As a great Marxist once said students are only capable of Leninist consciousness.

No, but the likes of Marx, Kautsky, and Lenin were. Intelligentsia =/= student.

[Rafiq]

Though luis, are you suggesting that objective scientific facts are.... Subjective? Without any hostility, how exactly is, for example, Quantum Physics ideological?

[Manic Impressive]

No, but the likes of Marx, Kautsky, and Lenin were. Intelligentsia =/= student.
Joseph Dietzgen?

[Rafiq]

Joseph Dietzgen?

Being a student doesn't mean you're a member of the intelligentsia. Being a member of the intelligentsia, however, doesn't necessarily disallow you to be a student.

[Manic Impressive]

Being a student doesn't mean you're a member of the intelligentsia. Being a member of the intelligentsia, however, doesn't necessarily disallow you to be a student.
OK we're talking about two different things now. In regards to my quote intelligentsia must first be a student but not all students will become intelligentsia. What I'm criticizing is


while any Marxist, exemplified by kautsky, knows that the sciences of according societies are independent of a definite class character and are only accessible by the intelligentsia, and that proletarian consciousness cannot develop spontaneously but (in it's final stage) from the non-proletarian intelligentsia.
If this is the case how do you explain Dietzgen? Dietzgen of course being one of the more famous socialists of the time who came from a much less affluent background, who studied philosophy in his spare time and came to the same conclusions as Marx regarding dialectical materialism, independently of him.

[Rafiq]

If this is the case how do you explain Dietzgen? Dietzgen of course being one of the more famous socialists of the time who came from a much less affluent background, who studied philosophy in his spare time and came to the same conclusions as Marx regarding dialectical materialism, independently of him.

What is there to explain? The intelligentsia can certainly come from proletarian backgrounds, though, the reason I used the word "Non proletarian intelligentsia" is due to the fact that this is usually not the case, and to emphasis the fact that they do not need to be proletarians in order to elevate proletarian class consciousnesses.

[Luís Henrique]

Though luis, are you suggesting that objective scientific facts are.... Subjective? Without any hostility, how exactly is, for example, Quantum Physics ideological?

I don't believe in the objective/subjective dichotomy, nor do I think that science is about "facts"...

Quantum Physics must be compatible with bourgeois ideology, else it wouldn't be taught by the bourgeois State's educational system. Whether this makes it less valid is a different issue.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

According to Marx, the dominant ideas of a given time are the ideas of its dominant class. How is something supposed to be devoid of any ideological content?

Actually, Marx describes ideology as false consciousness, so I'd say it is possible, yes.

[Rafiq]

Leo has a point. Many Marxists have, in the past, made distinctions between Ideology and Science. The "ruling ideas", perhaps, do not constitute as sciences, but of ideological structures.

[sixdollarchampagne]

This is a bit off-topic but something you said confuses me.

Are social sciences independent of any class content, or are you saying that the mere knowledge of them is? Lenin himself said that there could be no impartial social science in a society based on class struggle. Nikolai Bukharin also wrote extensively on the issue of proletarian vs. bourgeois social science. If you're saying that the acquisition of such knowledge is independent of class then I understand.

In my experience, social sciences as taught in universities in the US have a very definite class content, and it is bourgeois. Didn't one of the greats of Marxism hold that the ideas of the dominant class become the dominant ideas in a class society? Surely academic work in the US proves that assertion, without any doubt.

As far as the intellectual level of theologians goes, Catholic and Anglican theologians tend to be trained or, at least, well-read in philosophy, so that they really can be smart cookies. Karl Rahner and John Macquarrie are two examples of philosophically knowledgeable theologians. I found Macquarrie understandable, but I was totally baffled by page after page of Rahner.

[Luís Henrique]

Leo has a point. Many Marxists have, in the past, made distinctions between Ideology and Science. The "ruling ideas", perhaps, do not constitute as sciences, but of ideological structures.

Sure, but it would be difficult to imagine that scientific ideas could be actually divulged if they run contrary to ruling ideas. After all, that is what happens in social sciences in academy, where various brands of ideological bullshit tend to be studied instead of a scientific approach. The matter seems to be that bourgeois ideology is compatible with a quite high degree of scientific thought about nature, though not so about society.

Luís Henrique

[Rafiq]

Sure, but it would be difficult to imagine that scientific ideas could be actually divulged if they run contrary to ruling ideas. After all, that is what happens in social sciences in academy, where various brands of ideological bullshit tend to be studied instead of a scientific approach. The matter seems to be that bourgeois ideology is compatible with a quite high degree of scientific thought about nature, though not so about society.

Luís Henrique

It isn't so much that Bourgeois ideology has to be compatible with it, but that, after such sciences are exemplified, they may be adjusted to the language of Bourgeois ideology. What I mean by this, is that, the sciences in regards may not be initially pursued with the intention of substantiating bourgeois ideology. Though that may very well be the case in regards to some social "sciences".

[Vanguard1917]

But aside from all of that, he still was able to form a half semi decent notion of an obscure version of historical materialism, which surprised me. Made be a bit cynical as well, maybe the guy didn't believe his own bullshit and made the piece as a propagandist.

Yeah, the problem isn't that individual theologians are stupid - i'm sure they're all intellectually capable - but that theology as a scholarly discipline, insofar as it maintains a commitment to religion, is an intellectually limited area of study, for obvious reasons from a materialist POV.

[fgilbert2]

Actually, most non-fundamentalist theologians in Europe and North America engage other disciplines as a matter of course. Scriptural scholars are especially likely to be approaching their studies of scripture with the techniques of social sciences. And more "theoretical" theologians often use postmodern and marxian methodologies. I started reading Derrida, Deleuze and Lacan to understand the theologians I was reading.