[lbo-talk] Marxism and Religion

Yoshie Furuhashi critical.montages at gmail.com
Tue Feb 27 20:26:58 PST 2007


On 2/27/07, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2007 02:06:30 -0500 "Yoshie Furuhashi"
> <critical.montages at gmail.com> writes:
> > On 2/27/07, B. <docile_body at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > (And
> > > like I 've said, I've actually read the Qur'an cover
> > > to cover -- about as far out as the Bible.)
> >
> > The question is how people read the Bible, Qur'an, etc. and what
> > they
> > get out of them. Certain leftists -- such as yourself -- insist on
> > reading them literally, but if you do so, all you understand is what
> > literal-minded fundamentalists may get out of them. The thing is
> > that
> > most people of any religious faith are not fundamentalists, so they
> > don't read the texts literally, which is the reason why they can
> > reconcile faith and science.
>
> Well Stephen Jay Gould famously argued that religion
> and science could be understood as two independent
> and non-overlapping
> magisteria. But the problem with that argument is
> most forms of religious faith that exist in the US
> and elsewhere do not have much in common with
> religions like Unitarianism or Quakerism, for which Gould's
> argument would work.

Among the religions of the book, the oldest is Judaism, so one might suppose that it is the most difficult to square with science and modernity, but it turns out not only that the largest branch of American Judaism, Reform Judaism, is perfectly capable of doing so but also that Reform Jews hold a more progressive foreign policy view than secular "Just Jewish" Jews (who are themselves to the left of most other groups in America), according to the AJC survey cited by a recent Ha'aretz article (cf. <http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20070219/003689.html>).

An interesting irony that the oldest one has become the most modern.

Stephen Jay Gould's view is also perfectly in keeping with the views held by Catholics, mainline Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists, Conservative Jews, Reconstructionist Jews, and so on. The main holdout in the USA (the only country in the world, it seems to me, where this Science vs. Religion controversy is so strikingly prominent in the public sphere) are very literal-minded Christians who seek to insert creationism into public education, a sizable minority but a minority nonetheless. The faithful of the other varieties are in fact allies in a struggle to keep creationism and the like out of scientific education.

E.g.,

Catholic Church: "In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points....Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies -- which was neither planned nor sought -- constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory" (John Paul II, Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church>); "We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary -- rather than mutually exclusive -- realities" (Cardinal Ratzinger, In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall [Eerdmans, 1986, 1995], see especially pages 41-58, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Roman_Catholic_Church>)

Episcopalian Church: "Episcopalians believe that the Bible 'contains all things necessary to salvation' (Book of Common Prayer, p. 868): it is the inspired and authoritative source of truth about God, Christ, and the Christian life. But physicist and priest John Polkinghorne, following sixteenth-century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker, reminds us Anglicans and Episcopalians that the Bible does not contain all necessary truths about everything else. The Bible, including Genesis, is not a divinely dictated scientific textbook. We discover scientific knowledge about God's universe in nature not Scripture. . . . Here on earth biologists, paleontologists, geneticists and other scientists are showing that life has evolved over four billion years, and are reconstructing evolution's history. None of these scientific discoveries and the theories that explain them stands in conflict with what the Bible reveals about God's relationship to the creation" ("Catechism of Creation Part II: Creation and Science," <http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm>).

Presbyterian Church USA: "We conclude that the true relation between the evolutionary theory and the Bible is that of non-contradiction and that the position stated by the General Assemblies of 1886, 1888, 1889 and 1924 was in error and no longer represents the mind of our Church" ("Evolution Statement," 1969, <http://www.pcusa.org/theologyandworship/science/evolution.htm>).

United Methodist Church: "We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God's natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world, although we preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues. . . . Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible" ("Space & Science and Technology," <http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1820>).

Another irony of post-modern times is that if you examine the views of secular American leftists on such matters as cloning, nuclear power, and so forth, you'll probably find many negative views (some of which are scientific but others are instinctive) today, more negative than typical views held by Iran's mullahs. :->

<http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/22/iran_looks_to_science_as_source_of_pride/> Iran looks to science as source of pride Nuclear program stokes ambitions By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff | August 22, 2006

TEHRAN -- The white-coated scientists at Tehran's Royan Institute labor beneath a framed portrait of the turbaned, bearded supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the head of a state that enforces strict religious rules governing everything from how women dress to what kinds of parties people throw.

But in the cutting-edge field of human embryonic stem-cell research, the scientists work with a freedom that US researchers can only dream of: broad government approval, including government funding, to work on the potent cells from early-stage embryos that researchers believe hold the promise to cure many diseases.

In 2002, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, gave his blessing to research on surplus embryos created for fertility treatments -- work sharply restricted in the United States under pressure from religious conservatives -- calling it a ``lofty" effort that fit his goal of making Iran the scientific leader of the Muslim world.

The scientific ambitions that led Iran to embrace one of the world's most open policies on stem-cell research also help to explain why many Iranians support the nuclear research program that has thrust their country into a dangerous international confrontation.

Iran's leaders have declared that the nuclear program will restore Iran's scientific glory, tapping into a deep-seated national pride in science and education that dates to the Persian Empire, a center of world learning in the Middle Ages.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,,1839215,00.html> Iranian scientists clone sheep Robert Tait, Tehran Monday August 7, 2006 The Guardian

Scientists in Iran are hailing a technological breakthrough after producing what they claim is the Middle East's first cloned sheep.

The sheep was delivered at Tehran's Royan Institute, a research centre specialising in fertility issues, after months of unsuccessful cloning attempts also involving cows and mice.

It died minutes after being born before its creators had the chance to give it a name. But specialists say its birth represents a scientific landmark for Iran and will form the basis for other attempts to produce cloned animals.

Dr Reza Samani, the Royan Institute's public affairs officer, said: "We are not yet satisfied with our efforts. We will continue until we produce a clone that survives.

"We tried with a cow and the process was almost successful, but the gestation was so long that the mother miscarried. Work with the sheep is at a more advanced level."

Iran's cloning programme has the blessing of the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iranian research in the field mirrors its work in embryonic stem cell research, which started in 2003.

-- Yoshie <http://montages.blogspot.com/> <http://mrzine.org> <http://monthlyreview.org/>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list