3. “Comte believed in the existence of a prepotent factor in social change – the development of ideas. Therefore, he could be considered one of the ideological determinants.
The basic premise of his theory, the faith in evolution towards progress, was faulty.” 4. As far as his sociological theories are concerned, as Prof.
Timasheff opines, they represent “a premature jump from the level of observation and inferences… to the level of theory.” 5. Comte at the fag end of his life forgot his role as a scientist and played the role of a social reformer. He even believed himself to be a prophet, a high priest of a new religion. 6. “Comte was a poor religious thinker though he firmly believed that religion was one of the pillars of society” – writes Prof. Timasheff.
7. As J.S. Mill felt, Comte’s religion does not stand the test of rationalism for it is a strange thing that can never be put into practice. As someone has criticised, his religion was born out of his “moral intoxication.” People wanted him to give a science of religion, but instead of that he made the science, a religion.
8. Finally, as Rollin Chambliss has opined Comte wanted to build a science of social phenomena. But instead of doing that he struggled to provide his own projects and programmes of social reorganisation. He built a “utopia” instead of science.
To conclude, as Chambliss has said, we can speak of two Comets, so to say: Comte a brilliant scientist; and Comte, an ordinary saint. Of the two, we at present need Comte, the brilliant scientist.