A Short History of Progressivism

? Stephen H. Farra, PhD, LP, 2021. All rights reserved.

This paper offers an analysis of the Positivism, Reductionist Sociology, and Progressivism that now permeate our Western cultures. They all come to us from a single maladjusted Frenchman, Auguste Comte. While Comte’s biography and philosophy are presented here in enough detail for the reader to grasp his background, ideological direction, and values, this paper is not meant to be an exhaustive presentation of Comte’s philosophy. What it does provide is a detailed examination of the devastating effects that his reductionist Sociology and Progressivism have had in our Western Cultures – particularly the culture of the United States of America.

Progressively Worse:  The Toxic Legacy of Auguste Comte

        On the surface of modern social history, it would seem that French intellectual Auguste Comte (1798-1857) should be judged as having had a very successful, productive life. After all, he was one of the early Philosophers of Science, and is credited with being the founder of Positivism (a strict “believe only what you can see” form of empiricism, coupled with an absolute, prior rejection of theism and metaphysics). He is also credited with being the founder of the academic discipline of Sociology, and (maybe most significantly) the modern cultural movement we know as Progressivism (Radical Utopian Liberalism). There can be no doubt that he has powerfully influenced and even altered the course of many cultures in Europe, South America, and North America. So, what is the problem with the legacy of Auguste Comte?

      We’ll get to that, but first, a look at the background of Comte. He was born to an upper middle class, monarchist, Roman Catholic family in France, right at the end of the French Revolution. His mother was twelve years older than his father and was the dominant figure in the family. She doted on her pet “Isidore" (the first of his six given names, and her favorite name for him). By the time he reached the age of 18, Auguste had become increasingly alienated from his family of origin. He declared himself to be a populist and an atheist. Within a year, he met the utopian socialist Henri Saint-Simon. He attended his classes, and worked as his secretary. Comte came to genuinely believe that humanity is headed toward a grand Socialist Utopia. Every day marks real progress toward this glorious destiny. Comte’s relationship with Saint-Simon would eventually deteriorate and end, but Comte’s own writings kept their utopian tint and slant.   

      Comte’s atheistic, socialist, and utopian ideology and subsequent life decisions did not work out particularly well for him. He was unable to sustain intimate relationships. He was married at 27 to Caroline Massin, a mistress to a wealthy French lawyer. She was registered as a prostitute, and would go back to that practice when finances were tight. While the marriage lasted for 17 years before the divorce was final, during that time he spent months in a mental hospital. His psychiatrist diagnosed him as “a megalomaniac,” noting symptoms that included “grandiose thinking, disorientation with regard to time and space, disparate associations of ideas, belief in bizarre images, a tendency to strange discourse, and an inclination to the most ridiculous actions” (Dumas, 1905). He needed hospitalization because he was a danger to himself and others. He made several suicide attempts, including his most famous attempt made by jumping off the steel bridge that Napoleon built across the Seine river in the middle of Paris. (Goertzel, 2020).

      He survived the suicide attempts, and for a while enjoyed some limited success as a teacher of philosophy and science. His two major works were Course in Positive Philosophy, published in six volumes (1830–42), and System of Positive Polity, published in four volumes (1851–54). After saying (in essence) in his Course books that men and women should live by Science alone, Comte realized that this would leave them empty and without moral structure. They would need something to fill their souls and give them moral guidance. So, in his System books, besides laying out his thoughts about his capstone Sociology, Comte proposed his “Religion of Humanity.” It was designed to replace all other religions, but particularly the whole of the Judeo-Christian tradition, and most specifically, its social morality. He proposed that he himself would serve as “Pontiff” of this new religion as it imposed upon humanity an extremely detailed set of behavioural rules, governing almost every aspect of human experience. Before Comte proposed his full-blown “Religion of Humanity” he wrote out what he called The Catechism of Positive Religion (Comte, 1842). 

          As many commentators have put it, through all of this he attempted to offer “Catholicism without Christ”, or maybe more precisely, “Catholicism with his understanding of Science substituted for Christ.” Comte’s attempt to establish a new religion was roundly rejected as bizarre and self-serving, even by those who admired other aspects of his work. Auguste Comte irrationally and obsessively fell in love again – this time to Clotilde de Vaux, a married woman. While he often idealized her in his writings, he never married again, and was dead at the relatively early age of 59. (Bourdeau, 2018)   

      Comte’s point-of-view might have perished with him if it had not been for John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), a Member of Parliament, who helped to secure and popularize Comte’s point of view in Great Britain, Western Europe, and the Americas. J. S. Mill, also an atheist – whose Utilitarian philosophy helped establish “Classic Liberalism” – is considered one of the most influential philosophers of the late 1800s. Mill had his differences with Comte, much more preferring the content of Comte’s Course books to that of his System books (that he sharply critiqued), but nonetheless is credited with spreading Comte’s general point-of-view far and wide. (Feichtinger, Fillafer, & Surman, 2018).

     Comte was adamant that humanity should be led by his form of science (strict positivism), not theological religion. In fact, the only form of religion he respected was his own Positive Religion that he later called his Religion of Humanity.  According to Comte, humanity progresses as it leaves behind antiquated theological explanations (“superstitious” beliefs), and even metaphysical explanations (using abstractions like “charge” or “force”) and instead relies entirely upon material/visible experimental outcomes (our only source for true, positive knowledge).

        To update and expand upon Comte’s thoughts on science a bit: Comte correctly wrote that there are many different “sciences” (plural) in human cultures – each with its own unit(s) of analysis, and its own language system. For instance, the atomic and subatomic “particles” and electro-magnetic “charges” and “forces” of Physics are quite different from the “acids” and “bases”, “molecules” and “reactions” of Chemistry. From chemistry, one moves on up to Biology, with its focus on organic compounds, DNA, RNA, protein structures, complex functioning cells, osmosis, action potentials, neurotransmitters, spinal cords, brain structures, and mobile (even conscious) organisms. Then, one moves on up to Psychology, which itself has clear divisions, including physiological psychology, psychometric and therapeutic psychology, and social psychology, each with their own units of analysis, methods, and definitions. Comte did not explicitly recognize Psychology as one of his “sciences.” But, one cannot logically move from Biology to Sociology without moving directly up through studies of human consciousness and behavior (Psychology). 

     Nearly all the sciences use some form of mathematics to count and group things, because of the greater precision and universality of mathematics (as compared to the written and spoken languages of the nations). But, what is counted, how it is counted, and how the “units of analysis” are grouped, labeled, and eventually structured into something recognizable and useful is a process unique to each particular “science” and each group or “school” of individuals using that “science.” “Data” do not interpret themselves. It takes groups of human beings with their unique experiences, values, working models, and methods to interpret data – often in remarkably different ways!  

     Before Comte’s time, the more “basic sciences” moved on up to History (the formation of human cultures and their complex interactions over time), and then finally on up to Theology, providing ultimate explanations for the movement and direction of human cultures across the ages. Using insights from both special/biblical revelation and general/natural/scientific revelation, Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica (1265) put Theology at the very top of the ladder and called it “the Queen of the Sciences.” Since Comte was a committed atheist, he obviously felt he needed to completely replace Theology with something else. He not only did that, he effectively replaced History, too (in his system of thought). History and Theology were both replaced by his obviously biased form of Sociology (biased by the intensely reductionist/materialistic assumptions behind his Positivism). His biased/reductionist Sociology was presented as the only “scientific” way to study people groups over time. What was gained from his reductionist capstone Sociology were some interesting perspectives into the stratifications, functions, and movements of human societies. But, what was lost was profound. 

     Individual human beings no longer were said to have stable personal identities or deep personal meanings to their lives beyond the changing social milieu. Personal “identity” then becomes simply how we define ourselves in reference to the social groups and social pressures around us, and there is no meaning to human life other than what we and others make up for ourselves at the moment. A self-created/“made up” meaning, only referencing the social movements and pressures around us, is (at best) a very weak and unstable meaning for the course of our lives.  

      Largely embracing Comte’s Positivist, Sociological point of view in Western Europe and the Americas has led to hundreds of millions of “lost souls” on planet Earth, who no longer have any real knowledge of “who they are” or “why they are here.” Comte would consider such concerns merely trivial “schoolboy questions” that should be dismissed and discarded as one “matures.” The best that we can do is to “find our place in Society.” According to Comte’s logic, we need to get used to the final emptiness and meaninglessness of human life, and should no longer seek the “purpose for which we were created” – because such a transcendent purpose cannot exist. Comte was, after all, an atheist and a materialist in his core beliefs.  

      Springing out of Comte’s belief in social and cultural evolution, and his utopian vision, he put forward his belief in Progressivism: over the centuries, there has been a slow, but constant refinement and betterment of human culture through laying aside old, superstitious Judeo-Christian religious beliefs and morality and instead seeking and applying modern materialistic scientific perspectives.  As a species, we have emerged from barbarous beginnings to become civilized nations that will get progressively better as we continue the process of discarding Judeo-Christian religious perspectives for scientific perspectives, and move from a structured society focused on capitalism, private property earned by hard work, individual initiative, responsibility, and accountability, to an egalitarian society based on an entitled Socialism, where anyone and everyone can simply take an equal piece of pie as a fundamental “right.”

      The Progressive mantras (in essence) became: “Materialistic Science will be our Savior”, and “a Socialist Utopia will be its on-the-ground manifestation.” Sounding new and exciting to many of the intellectuals of the late 1800s and early 1900s, this point of view was readily absorbed and implemented in Europe and the Americas, with (as mentioned before) the very significant assistance of John Stuart Mill. In Europe there were the rapid emergence of progressive/socialist political parties. In South America, the words “Order and Progress” (a shortened version of Comte’s well-known Positivist motto) are boldly written across the central starry orb in the middle of the Brazilian flag – formally adopted in 1889. 

     The Champion of Progressive Education in the United States, John Dewey, first signed the Humanist Manifesto in 1933 (declaring an end to traditional religious perspectives and values in favor of scientific “progress”), and then spent the rest of his long life spreading his Progressive Education throughout the public school system of the United States. Being a stealthy, but committed atheist, he did not believe in God or biblical definitions of righteousness or sin. The human being is not just valuable, but overwhelmingly and persistently good, said Dewey, and only needs the freedom to express that innate goodness through scientifically-assisted means to accomplish great things for self and others. Dewey’s point of view, derived from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Auguste Comte, and John Stuart Mill, rapidly spread across the United States, from Columbia University in New York City where Dewey was a Professor of Philosophy and Education – to the West Coast (now known as the most “progressive” part of the country).   

      Currently in the United States, true believers in Progressivism include most Public School Educators, most Journalists, most Movie Stars/Media Operatives, most Liberal Politicians, and most of those marching and/or rioting in the streets. They do not seem very concerned about how this Progressive (Atheist/Socialist) point-of-view (complete with its own value system) has actually played out over the last 120 years. 

     In professional therapeutic Psychology, we recognize the importance of group and personal boundaries. It is through these group and personal boundaries that we are able to protect personal space and personal integrity. This is how we work to keep vulnerable people (all of us) safe from the greed/lust, violations, and attacks we all-too-often observe in human communities. Without recognized and observed boundaries, we see how individuals frequently abuse others, and are themselves abused by others. In professional Psychology, we either recognize and follow certain set boundaries, or we will be stripped of our professional licenses and our livelihoods.

      One of the greatest problems with Comte’s legacy is how his atheistic, utopian Progressivism abandons Creator-bestowed “inalienable rights” and other set boundaries. There is no framework for “set boundaries” or “natural law” in Comte’s atheistic, Socialist/Progressive thinking. This was Oxford don C. S. Lewis’ main point in his important book about the education of children in England, The Abolition of Man (Lewis, 1943). Those who will not accept that there is an innate morality woven into the very fabric of life will become (in the end) hallow individuals. Lewis called them “men without chests” who are easily manipulated and abused, and will readily abuse others. Very unfortunately, in the Western world, we are now much closer to the abolition of man than we were in 1943. So many individuals no longer know how to think for themselves, and they have no meaningful moral compass. They are easily manipulated, and readily become part of the Socialist/Progressive “echo chamber.”     

      Consider how the following Progressive individuals and their movements have produced long-lasting cultural damage/destruction to the Constitutional Republic we know as the United States of America. In the U.S. we currently face cultural crises of such staggering proportions that they must be addressed directly/bluntly, and in practically effective ways, or the Republic is not likely to survive much longer.

     1. Margaret Sanger (1879-1966) founder of the American Birth Control League (1921) and Planned Parenthood (1942) decided she’d assist the process of cultural refinement, so important to most Progressives, by pushing her version of eugenics. To be fair to Auguste Comte, he did not himself directly advocate for eugenics, but his Progressivism set the stage for it, by establishing a philosophical, functional atheism as the new normal, and stressing the need for continuous cultural refinement. Rejecting her mother’s Roman Catholic faith, Margaret Sanger desired to eliminate (or at least minimize) the reproduction of “inferior” human beings.

      Margaret Sanger strongly believed in “survival of the fittest” contained within Charles Darwin’s Law of Natural Selection: “Under its pitiless and unsympathetic iron rule, only the strongest, most courageous could live and become progenitors of the race. The weak died early, or were killed. Today, however, civilization has brought sympathy, pity, tenderness and other lofty and worthy sentiments, which interfere with the law of natural selection. We are now in a state where our charities, our compensation acts, our pensions, hospitals and even our drainage and sanitary equipment all tend to keep alive the sickly and weak, who are allowed to propagate and in turn produce a race of degenerates.” (Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Woman's Health," Dec 1917. Source: Birth Control Review, Dec. 1917, pp. 7-8, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, Smith College Collections, S70:791) 

     Dr. Clenard H. Childress, Jr. is an African-American Senior Pastor of a large church in New Jersey. He is also founder of the website BlackGenocide.org that consistently warns: “The Most Dangerous Place for an African American is in the Womb.” In one of his website videos, he reports that Margaret Sanger: (1) advised Adolf Hitler through the Eugenics societies of her day, (2) was personally commended by Hitler, and (3) had members of the Third Reich serve on the Board of her organization (Childress, Jr., 2020).

      These chilling statements from Dr. Childress are supported by these well-known facts:

     “In 1912, Leonard Darwin, son of famous naturalist Charles Darwin, held the First International Congress of Eugenics in London. More than three hundred people from England, Europe, and the U.S. attended his conference … Henry F. Perkins, who was president from 1931 to 1933, [also] worked with the Birth Control League [in the U.S.], the predecessor of Planned Parenthood … Margaret Sanger, called Noal Slee at the time of [her] membership … established the American Birth Control League in 1921” (Gur-Arie, 2014).

     While Sanger usually hesitated to say so openly, her early writings clearly indicated she believed blacks (African Americans) to be an inferior race, whose reproduction needed to be reduced or eliminated. This is what one of her close associates, Dr. DuBois, wrote about African Americans in 1938:

     “On the other hand, the mass of ignorant Negroes still breed carelessly and disastrously, so that the increase among Negroes, even more than the increase among whites, is from that part of the population least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear their children properly.” (W.E.B. DuBois, Professor of Sociology, Atlanta University. “Black Folk and Birth Control.” Written for and published in Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review, Volume XXII, Number 8 - New Series, May 1938, the “Negro Number”, page 90.)

     A year later, Sanger herself wrote these revealing words to her friend and associate C. J. Gamble (wealthy heir to the Proctor & Gamble fortune): “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the [cooperating] minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” – Letter from Margaret Sanger to Dr. C. J. Gamble, December 10, 1939 (Ciancio, 2019).

     It is sad and very ironic that many of the same people who so passionately fund and otherwise support Black Lives Matter also passionately fund and otherwise support their favorite Progressive organization – Planned Parenthood! They should strive for greater consistency.  And, just maybe, all lives matter – Red and Yellow, Black and White, Born and Not-Yet-Born – because God makes and loves them all.  A couple can practice effective birth control without killing not-yet-born babies. When abortion (infanticide) is used as a primary form of birth control, it obviously and substantially cheapens human life throughout the culture.  It should not surprise us that Margaret Sanger would think that racial “eugenics” was and is simply the next step in the progressive process.   

     2. In U. S. public schools, despite record/massive financial expenditures, the basic skills of students have sharply deteriorated. John Dewey’s Progressive Education emphasized the “appropriate socialization” of the child, instead of basic academic skills. By the 1980s, it was clear something was very wrong:

     The Public Schools were failing so obviously, the educators' own standardized tests and surveys showed that for the first time in American history we were producing a generation who read and wrote and performed arithmetic problems less well than the generation before it. After Mean composite ACT scores declined from 19.9 to 18.6, 1970 to 1985, the test publishers changed the very nature of their test in the late 1980's, so that direct comparisons of basic skill levels across decades were not possible using their instrument. The Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) at the time still permitted meaningful and direct comparisons: Mean SAT verbal scores declined from 460 to 422, 1970 to 1991, and Mean SAT math scores declined from 488 to 474, over the same period. These results were from the from the upper end of the distribution – the college bound students. The results at the other end of distribution were more telling. The National Adult Literary Survey (1993) indicated that one in four high school graduates was functionally illiterate: the graduate could not perform even simple tasks, such as finding the expiration date on a driver's license. USA TODAY included the next layer of the “marginally literate” in its lead above-the-fold, front-page headline: "90 million can barely read, write" (Sept 9, 1993).

     You would think that enough alarm bells would have gone off in the late 1980s and early 1990s to abandon Progressive Education for something more effective – but, not so!  Things have gotten worse over the last two decades:

     Now the makers of the SAT, like the ACT before them, have changed their source bank of test questions and the scoring on their tests, so direct year-to-year comparisons running back for a generation or two, are very difficult, if not impossible. Since we cannot readily do meaningful longitudinal studies on educational effectiveness, we are left with cross-sectional, comparative national studies. Here, too, our ship appears to be sinking, particularly in the area of Math. Our public schools, despite receiving more money per individual student than any other country in the world, have continued to fail our students. According to the National Center of Educational Statistics (NCES, 2012), in Mathematics, the Mean score of the students from the United States positions them well below the international average for all developed nations – way behind nations like South Korea, Japan, and Switzerland (at the top of the distribution) – even behind nations like Poland, Spain, and Slovenia. At multiple levels, we have gotten away from what actually works, and embraced a definition and method of education that clearly does not work. If we care about our children, we obviously need to replace Progressive Education with a better (more effective) model.      

     3. The American family has been subjected to relentless social and political assaults, and has been damaged to where the very definition of a “family” has changed. It is no longer a man and a woman who are emotionally, spiritually, and legally committed to each other (through marriage), and in the process help produce and raise up their children for the glory of God, and the betterment of the human community. Rather, the “family” is said to be any short-term group of people living under one roof, without regard to their sexual practices, means of reproduction, or ability to provide balanced, necessary child-rearing. 

     Legal marriage between a man a woman in the U.S. had been in continuous decline from the middle 1980s through 2014, and was at a record low level, when the U.S. Supreme Court decided to change the very definition of what constituted a legal marriage in June of 2015 (Zagorsky, 2016). 

     Certainly, it would have been possible to allow for civil unions, and to extend survivor benefits without changing the very definitions of marriage and family across the nation. But, no, the four Liberal/Progressive justices of the Supreme Court (and Anthony Kennedy who voted with them) wanted to do something dramatic – and they did! Here are three articles on the dissents from that decision – the first one from the Washington Post, the last two from CNN and CBS (hardly “right-wing” or “homophobic” sources)!     

      Amber Phillips in the Washington Post reported this on June 26, 2015: 

     “Today's Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states completely undermines America's democratic process.” That's the bold statement Chief Justice John Roberts made in his principal dissent. In one day, Roberts said, “the court has basically transformed the societal institution that has held together humanity for millennia.”

     "Who do we think we are?" he said. (Phillips, 2015)

     CNN:  In his dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the issue of same-sex marriage should be decided not by the courts but by the normal, state-based democratic process: "Just who do you think we are?" Roberts asked, calling the majority's decision "an act of will, not legal judgment" that “burst the bonds of history.” [For the five thousand years of recorded human history, marriage has been defined as a long-lasting commitment between a man and woman that honorably produces and raises up children.]  Now, five “lawyers” (his word) took it upon themselves to reverse all that in a single, sweeping decision for the whole nation. Such judicial activism does not quell societal controversy, it only increases it, wrote Roberts. 

      CBS News: In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas added that such judicial activism could have "potentially ruinous consequences for religious liberty." (CBS News, 2015) 

      This kind of judicial activism (usually, a forced imposition of “progressive values”), increasingly common over the last 60 years, made much worse by the weakness of “progressive education” and the vast number of fatherless homes – has over the same time period helped produce a sharp rise in the per-capita rates of depression, drug addiction, suicide, and incarcerations. The continuing rise in out-of-wedlock births only guarantees that such serious and even deadly social ills will continue. We clearly need to restore (and protect) the definition and foundational, beneficial functions of the nuclear family. Families are the most basic and enduring building blocks of civilization. Long term, we won’t have a free, healthy, and civilized society apart from families. 

     4. Civil discourse in our Western nations has deteriorated to where it has become increasingly difficult to even have a rational conversation with members of the Progressive Left.   Often, it is only a matter of several seconds before they stop listening and processing information (almost entirely), and start shouting slogans and talking points. Currently, some of them will attempt to go further – they will literally try to take you out of the discussion entirely. It’s all part of their new “cancel culture.” From their point of view, there is no longer any such thing as freedom of speech or freedom of assembly! Instead, they insist they everyone be as “woke” as they are, and routinely engage in “virtue signaling.”

     5. The history of Socialism in the twentieth century needs much more careful study. More people have lost their lives from the forced implementation of Socialism in the last century than in all the religious wars of the last 500 years. Those who doubt this should count the dead from the imposition of Socialism just in the twentieth century. Joseph Stalin (1878-1953), the leader of the newly formed Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), killed up to 20 million of his own people in the name of socialist reforms. The highways that run across Siberia are (to this day) paved with their bone fragments. Mao Zedong in the “Cultural Revolution” in China oversaw the same kind of mass slaughter of his own people. And, the current Chinese government continues similar practices with its ubiquitous facial-recognition cameras and software, and its immense, brutal “re-education” camps in Northwest China. Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge government in Cambodia (1975-1979), another Socialist “re-education” government, also had its mass “killing fields” – responsible for up to 2 million deaths. 

       Once Socialism erodes/erases the basic, “inalienable rights” of human beings (granted to all humans by “their Creator”, highlighted in the Declaration of Independence), Socialism does not usher in a grand utopia (a “worker’s paradise”).  Rather, it ushers in a frightening and deadly dystopia – where anything and anyone can be taken away in an instant, if we do not completely conform. Our very lives can be snuffed out, if we simply disagree with any of the party bosses. This is the very real Fascism of the Left. Currently, it is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 political prisoners are being held up in the Northwestern river valleys of that wonderful “worker’s paradise” we know as North Korea. Who knows how many have been sexually violated, tortured, and/or killed by Kim Il-sung, his son Kim Jong-un, and their WPK/Socialist party bosses?  If your life has been devoted to the Radical Socialism of the Progressive Left, you may want to re-think that commitment – while you still can.

     6. Those who think it’s a good idea to dispose of our Judeo-Christian values and heritage for a whole-hearted devotion to “science”, should re-think that commitment, too. Science in its proper and best place, allowed to do what it can and should do, is (of course) a wonderful thing. We all appreciate the medical breakthroughs, electric lights, the enhanced means of communication, cleaning, travel, etc. I deeply value and respect well-directed, well-validated science! I have spent a good portion of my life teaching Research Statistics to university students, but I can tell you without reservations that a whole-hearted devotion to the scientific process (without reference to Judeo-Christian worship and its guiding values) is a recipe for disaster.  Read (or re-read) Mary Shelley’s 1818 book, Frankenstein. Very early on she clearly foresaw the dangers of run-away science and technology. The same science and technology that greatly helps us in our daily lives can (with the twist of a knob or the press of a button) also destroy us!

     The early 1900s were awash with the utopian, but foolish “Science will be our Savior” motto and belief system. That was just before the trench warfare, mustard gas, machine guns, and wholesale human carnage of World War I, followed by the Blitzkriegs, the massive Auschwitz-style Death Camps, the Kamikaze planes, the Atomic Bombs, and even greater human carnage of World War II. Living in the shadow of the mushroom clouds has cast everything in an eerie light from 1945 onward – we realize that our “science” is much more likely to destroy us than it is to bring us to a perfect utopia. To be scorched by a nuclear blast, or to die by radiation poisoning would be a very difficult way to go!  Both the United States and Russia have enough nuclear weapons to make this an uninhabitable planet – not only for all human beings, but for every living thing on the planet – even bacteria. And, China is rapidly catching up.

     7. Computers have (up until fairly recently) been put to mostly good purposes, but constant hacking, direct cyber-theft, and ransomware, along with the specters of facial recognition software and 24/7/365 tracking, have now sent a collective chill down our collective spines. And, that is nothing compared to what will come with the full emergence of Artificial Intelligence.

     No one would accuse the late British Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking and U.S. Entrepreneur and Space Pioneer Elon Musk of being “Conservative Christians” … “stuck in the values of the past” … “backward, technophobic men.” Here is what they have to say about Science being our Savior: The late Stephen Hawking, for many years one of Britain's pre-eminent scientists, has said that efforts to create thinking machines pose a threat to our very existence. He told the BBC: "The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race." 

     We all love our smartphones, and our listening/talking devices at home, but in the longer term, U.S. technology entrepreneur Elon Musk has warned that Artificial Intelligence is "our biggest existential threat." (Cellan-Jones, 2014). 

     So, how about we just give up the “Science will be our Savior” and “a Socialist Utopia will be the on-the-ground manifestation” mantras of the Progressive Left? Neither are supported by the evidence of the last 120 years. 

     Auguste Comte had some interesting things to say as an early philosopher of Science. And, we can learn some useful things about social dynamics – even from his biased/reductionist Sociology. But, we certainly do not need to replace both History and our Judeo-Christian Theology with his version of Sociology – or any other aspect of his Atheistic/Socialist/Utopian thought. Overall, Comte’s legacy (with the significant help of John Stuart Mill) is intensely toxic. It has poisoned our families, our schools, and decades of human experience on at least three continents, and is continuing to do so.  

      We should never let Comte’s reductionist Sociology steal away from us our personal identities and sustaining meanings. We are not completely determined by the social groups and social pressures around us. We are called by God to fulfill the purpose for which we were created (that is the true meaning of the word Vocation.) Further, we need to realize that there are many things that are very real – empathy, human relationships, interpretations of intent, joy, meaning, God’s abiding and sustaining Presence, hope, the spiritual and emotional strength that come from all of these, etc. – that cannot be directly seen or physically measured. [It is the Insula deep in the human brain (full of “mirror neurons”) that makes it possible for us to have bonded empathetic relationships. When the functions of the Insula become compromised, a person becomes susceptible to communication/relationship disorders such as autism, sociopathic behavior, atheism, etc.] Careful, appropriate Empiricism (verification through sensory experience) is very useful in helping us to establish an evidentiary base for any proposition, but Comte’s Positivism (loaded with his extreme materialistic reductionism and other ideological biases) severely truncates and otherwise distorts our view of reality. 

     The hope that Progressivism will finally lead us into a prolonged utopian state of socialist bliss is both false and highly destructive. Science (not guided by Judeo-Christian values) will much more likely be our Destroyer – certainly not our Savior. If we are guided by an unbridled Science, we will not be headed into a socialist utopia, but a dark and deadly dystopia. The whole history of Scientific Socialism is that of high-sounding promises, followed by degradation, confiscation, destruction, and death. 

     If we want to avoid such an end, we need to return to our core, traditional Judeo-Christian worldview and firmly embrace it.  After all, it is “the Fatherhood of God” that lifts humanity and produces “the Brotherhood of Man” – not the utopian visions of atheists and socialists. Our Judeo-Christian values should again permeate our schools and guide all our scientific investigations and applications. Those of us who live in our poisoned and battered Western Cultures need to again embrace and affirm personal freedom, human worth and dignity, generous management of personal property, meaningful worship, fulfilling our calling/true vocation through faithful service to God and man. And, as uncomfortable as it may be, we need to allow others to hold us accountable for our own actions.

    That, friends, is the path forward.

References:

Bourdeau, M. (2018). Auguste Comte. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from:  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/comte/

CBS News (2015). Dissenting opinions in the Supreme Court’s same sex marriage ruling. CBS News. Retrieved from: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dissenting-opinions-in-the-supreme-courts-same-sex-marriage-ruling/

Childress Jr., C. (2020). Margaret Sanger was pro-nazi and a racist. Video retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=23&v=6uo31VZCei8&feature=emb_title 

Ciancio, S. (2019). The difference one racist made: Margaret Sanger’s world. Human Life International. Retrieved from: https://www.hli.org/resources/the-difference-one-racist-made-margaret-sangers-world/

Cellan-Jones, R. (2014). Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind. BBC. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540

Comte, A. (1842). The Catechism of Positive Religion. Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Catechism_of_Positive_Religion.html?id=FaMNAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Comte, A. (1839-42).  Course in Positive Philosophy.  Retrieved from: https://books.google.com/books?id=lSbXAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA1&source=kp_read_button&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

de Vogue, A. (2015). Roberts issues stern dissent in same-sex marriage case. CNN Supreme Court Reporter. Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/john-roberts-gay-marriage-dissent/index.html

Feichtinger, J., Fillafer F., and Surman, J. (2018). Particularizing Positivism. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/36143571/_Introduction_Particularizing_Positivism_in_The_Worlds_of_Positivism_A_Global_Intellectual_History_1770_1930_ed._by_J._Feichtinger_F._L._Fillafer_and_Jan_Surman_New_York_Palgrave-Macmillan_2018_pp._1-27     

Goertzel, T. (2020). The Fathers of Sociology: Personal Troubles and Public Issues. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/41780292/The_Fathers of_Sociology_Personal_Troubles_and_Public_Issues

Gur-Arie, R. (2014). American Eugenics Society (1926-1972).  Retrieved from: https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/american-eugenics-society-1926-1972

Lewis, C. S. (1943). The Abolition of Man, Originally published by Oxford University Press. Retrieved from: https://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/AbolitionofMan.pdf

Phillips, A. (2015). John Roberts’s full-throated gay marriage dissent: Constitution ‘had nothing to do with it,’ The Washington Post, June 26, 2015. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/06/26/john-robertss-full-throated-gay-marriage-dissent-constitution-had-nothing-to-do-with-it/

Zagorsky, J. (2016). Why are fewer people getting married? The Conversation / The Eclectic Economist. Retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/why-are-fewer-people-getting-married-60301