That's ok Mrs C. I'm sorry I tried to address what you wrote.
Despite my boorish exasperation, I'm glad you took the trouble to address what I wrote. It's just have I absolutely disagreed with what you said! It happens - pax I hope.
From your account, Marx and Feuerbach sound like a couple of thickos. It's fairly obvious, even to small feral children wandering the streets in Ilford, that the 'human essence' is a mixture of the individual and the social - at various levels - cellular, biological, family, social and societal etc.
Is that addressed to me or russell20? Marx and Feuerbach were introduced by russell20 to address the issue of an universal human nature.
Tell me more about these "feral children" - is that some sort of underclass, lumpen-proletariat as Marx might have said, ripe for culling?
Science and technology operate on both the social and the individual level - in terms of human thought and behaviour, that's enough to snooker religious nonsense, given the right conditions.
I am probably using this word incorrectly (and I would be glad to be corrected) but what about the "dialectic"? Is there no dialectical relation between humans and science and technology - i.e. they influence us, we create and mould them, they influence us, we create and mould them, ad nauseum. And who makes science and technology, AZ? And why did modern science arise in Western Europe, beginning in C17th? Why there, why then? Why didn't the Chinese do it first?
And what are the right conditions? May I suggest they are the socio-political conditions that humans create within history.
And it's not true to say that humans are as illogical as they are logical. They wouldn't be able to function if they were. Humans use logic almost all the time, for all sorts of basic things. But the logic so used is prone to a multitude of problems - biases, flawed assumptions etc., which means that although logic is a primary tool for achievement, it does not always work as advertised, nor do people (individually or in groups) necessarily realize that it hasn't worked.
So we're logical, but oops, so often very silly and, dang it, slip into the illogical.
Wouldn't be easier to say we are just constructed to be capable of logic but also the illogical.
Not many people seriously consider themselves to have no commonsense - which is just another word for everyday logic.
I think using "commonsense" as a synonym for logic may be confusing matters. The great majority of things we do on a mundane everyday level we hardly think about at all. And it seems pretty much the case that most of the decisions we make are made by our unconscious brains - not the slow, deliberating veneer of the conscious brain. Therefore, so it seems, it's that unconscious brain that makes the, oops, slip ups. And surely, that naughty unconscious brain must have evolved to be like that - no?
Major change coming from logical, scientific reasoning? - the industrial revolution, modern medicine and the reduction in infant mortality, the disastrous population explosion, the use of social media, mutually assured destruction, the principles underlying the UN declaration of human rights, anti-pollution legislation, and a couple of million other things.
That question mark at the end of the first sentence - are you saying that all the following DID NOT derive from "logical, scientific reasoning"? Because you list at least one double dumb dumb - "disastrous population explosion". Otherwise, I can't believe you think that all that list came solely from "logical, scientific reasoning". If you do, I can only ask whether you are some sort of fundamentalist 😕