i actually think i've been pretty clear for a long time and from the start: i'm very much an eighteenth century classical anarchist (which was the sister ideology to classical liberalism), tied to concepts of historical progress and obsessed with the epistemological superiority of the scientific method.

i have no interest in structuralism, post-structuralism, post-(post-structuralism) or any other system of thinking that wants to throw away the intellectual rigour of the classical period. i live in the world of bertrand russell and isaac asimov, not the world of michel foucault and angela davis.

so, yes: i'm as staunchly pro-science as i am anti-religion. yes, i think they're in conflict. yes, i think one will have to defeat the other. no, i don't think they can co-exist. and, i'm not interested in organizing with people that think this kind of plurality is possible; i actually consider that to be right-wing, reactionary and conservative.

i want a society rooted in science from the ground up, with the eventual relegation of all religion to the dustbin of history.

and, i think the left ought to be aggressive in pushing forward with that aim. this is a conflict the left ought to relish.

i just ultimately can't grasp why anybody pushing for religious pluralism would choose to identify on the left. it's just simply not a left-wing idea; it's pretty much the definition of the historical conservative movement. the left has always been about abolishing religion; it is the right that has been about concepts of "class harmony".

so, sure: i very well might come off as some old school eurocentric liberal that looks down on half the world as outside of historical progress and in need of serious systemic reform. the reason i would come off that way is that it's actually true - and, i'm not going to apologize for it because i think it's actually correct, and my opponents - people arguing against it - are in truth deep cultural conservatives that want to stop progress and need to be opposed and stopped, using whatever means are necessary.

that said, it's 2017, not 1817. as an empiricist, i have an obligation to look at data that we have available to us today that was not available then and learn from it. we must acknowledge that the methods that the left used in the past to abolish traditional ways of life were not successful, and should be evolved as best they can be.

in the end, i don't have a problem admitting that i'm not on your side, but i will insist that i am on the left, and you are not - and try and push you out to where you should be, rather than retreat to rebuild.