Freud, Darwin and Marx have been suggested as examples of twentieth century
materialism. I have posted what I believe to be similarities between
materialist psychology and Darwinism, but what else does Marxism have in
common with Darwinism?
For one thing Marxism ignored the existence of creativity. Science cannot
measure, predict, manipulate or even define creativity. Creativity is
commonly regarded as such an obvious belief in our culture that it is
difficult for science to declare it doesn't exist. However creativity can be
declared "not a part of science" and ignored. Some scientists have
questioned the existence of "free will", another name for creativity. Like
Freudian psychology and Darwinism, Marxism consisted of simplistic formulas
governing complex processes, and ignored the possibility of creativity or
"free will" overriding those formulas.
However, the greatest similarity between Marxism and Darwinism was failure to
define the controversy surrounding them. For years many people were
terrified of communism, convinced that if it weren't actively fought,
communism would "take over the world". "The spread of communism" was
regarded as a menace that brought terror to our hearts. People feared the
terrible ideas and beliefs of communism might "take us over", somehow
replacing democracy. Similarly, materialists appear to fear the spread of
"creationism". Those scientists who voice skepticism of any aspect of
Darwinism, are warned they are giving "aid and comfort to the enemy"-- the
"creationists". Any idea, no matter how bizarre, such as multiple
universes, can be entertained so long as it remains "in the materialist
camp", and doesn't support "creationism". Design, more of a philosophical
concept than something that can be scientifically demonstrated, is fought by
Darwinists for fear it might allow possible legitimacy for the religious
beliefs of "creationists".
By now we realize we had nothing to fear from communism. It consisted of
na•ve, impractical formulas. I suppose those who feared communism suspected
it might be some mysterious concept with real, hidden value, something that
worked and people would come to prefer. Materialists who fear "creationism"
seem to fear someone is going to try to impose some religious belief upon
them. Perhaps materialists are not as secure as they would like to be with
their philosophy. Do they fear someone has a religious belief that is going
to "take over the world"? I'd like to assure materialists that the day has
passed in our society when anyone can impose any religious belief, including
materialism, upon anyone. Why not acknowledge that nature does indeed appear
to be the result an infinitely complex design and let everyone come to their
own conclusions about the origin of that design? If religious people believe
God intervened in nature, or others believe creativity sometimes overrides
scientific formulas, that would not decrease the value or practical benefits
of such formulas. A scientific formula that is valid 99.99 percent of the
time is not worthless. Laws of nature might bear more resemblance to nature
if they were regarded as less rigid, not absolute - or to put it another way,
not "divine revelation".
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 10 2000 - 11:44:43 EST