The article is shallow, a little stupid and quite pointless. It seems to be written by a young and inexperienced author – perhaps a youth trying to impress the adults who are still in the process of ‘educating’ the younger generation. It reads like ‘fleshed-out’ simplistic and hasty ‘notes’ compiled for use in a debating society where participants might have to take-on the ‘opposite’ viewpoint – whatever that might be. The narrative plays on the false dichotomy the political right likes to concoct between religion and science (such as that found in the work of Richard Dawkins and the Trotskyite Christopher Hitchins, etc) – as if the two systems of interpreting reality have no inherent connection or historical interaction.
At the very least, where do such thinkers believe terms such as ‘theory’ comes from? That is, the Greek notion of ‘how’ God operates ‘in’ nature – became how ‘natural’ – (observable, measurable and predictable) material laws operate ‘through’ nature – despite the word ‘God’ (Theos) being central to both processes! So much of the language of modern science has its origins within Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian theurgy and theology. Simply stating that ‘there are laws’ implies no other meaning than that contained within the boundaries of its own demarcated logic.
What lies beyond the extent of this knowledge is not known – and is not likely to be known – at least not in the conventional sense of building theories from material measurement and observation of processes. If a further reality cannot be known in that direct manner – then by what method can it be known? Religion may still yet have a sting in its tail! A genuine Marxist-Leninist – that is, a ‘person of the left’ – does not deny the influence religion has had upon the development of science, nor does such a person deny how many theologically trained Christian monastics used this training to develop the rational thought that underlies modern science – St Bruno and Gregor Mendel springs to mind – but there are many others. St Bruno was a Carthusian monk, whilst Gregor Mendel was an Augustine friar, etc. Supposing continuous physical self-discipline, couple with meditation and contemplation – leads to a level of physical and psychological development that is able to produce scientific thinking?
Admittedly, Marx (and Lenin) is scathing against the institution of established religion and the ‘popular’ (simplistic) religiosity it perpetuates to maintain political influence – but this is not the same as being ‘anti-religion’ regardless of what some other Marxists might contend. Marx (and Lenin) rejected ‘popular’ religion but had no problem with the proper teachings of religion practiced as a private matter that does not involve the acquiring or exercising of political power. To my mind, this Marxist approach returns religion to a situation where it can function in its ‘purest’ sense without being corrupted through an association with worldly power!