The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
pfbcarlisle wrote:(I might be wrong but I think that for many years the Questionnaire did not have a question about religion).
Does anyone know when the religious question appeared on the questionnaire?
Ed, my catechism is the Trinity…worker – trade unionist – socialist – the One Big Union – and my Holy Spirit is class consciousness while the Logos is the Socialist Standard !
I don't think the exclusion of the religious (or deists) excludes enough idealists. If anything, the question should be broadened.
jondwhite wrote:I don't think the exclusion of the religious (or deists) excludes enough idealists. If anything, the question should be broadened.The essence of socialism is not beyond the understanding of most people, however if further restrictions are placed upon joining the movement, such as strict atheism, adherence to historical materialism with Marx and Engels placed on a pedestal, then socialism will be a long time coming. In fact I would go as far as saying it would never happen.A good PR approach would seek to make it as palatable as possible without sacrificing core structural values, as common ownership and democratic control. Socialism is not an intellectually elitist book club, it's about real people seeking a better world. Don't put more obstacles in the way.
It wouldn't restrict joining the movement, only joining the party. The party is not the movement. Workers who want to support the party are told not to if they do not understand, yet workers continue to support the party.A good PR approach is a materialist idea, based on material reality of the effect of good PR. Idealists would be indifferent or not be interested in a good PR approach. They would call it 'the passing show'.
Just for clarification, which of the following comments, as partial or complete answers to the the religion question, would cause an application to be rejected?I don't believe in a god.I don't know whether there is a god.Belief in a god is irrelevant to my socialist understanding.Religion is a personal matter.I don't believe in a god but I believe we live on in some way when we die.There is no god or heaven but I have a soul.There may be a god but its existence is irrelevant for describing and understanding how the world works.God is unknowable.The existence of a god and/or an afterlife can be neither proved nor disproved.I don't believe in a god but I believe in reincarnation.I have a memory of a previous existence.God has revealed himself to me and there's nothing you can do to disprove it.
rodshaw wrote:Just for clarification, which of the following comments, as partial or complete answers to the the religion question, would cause an application to be rejected?I don't believe in a god.I don't know whether there is a god.Belief in a god is irrelevant to my socialist understanding.Religion is a personal matter.I don't believe in a god but I believe we live on in some way when we die.There is no god or heaven but I have a soul.There may be a god but its existence is irrelevant for describing and understanding how the world works.God is unknowable.The existence of a god and/or an afterlife can be neither proved nor disproved.I don't believe in a god but I believe in reincarnation.I have a memory of a previous existence.God has revealed himself to me and there's nothing you can do to disprove it.All but the first answer, and even then I would ask for clarification
Hi JDWBefore we go any further with this I wonder if you could clarify your original comment about idealists being excluded from the party. I assume you must think there are idealists already in the SPGB? If so some examples of idealist interference would be welcome, no names of course.In the UK the SPGB is the movement so far. Those who vote SPGB could not really be termed part of a movement in any real sense of the word, as a movement implies active involvement in achieving any goals etc. Essentially we are born and raised in a society where we are encouraged not to take part, the very nature of socialism is the opposite of that. It would be a complete society of voluntary involvement on every level. How many voters do you expect fully understand this aspect?
pfbcarlisle wrote:gnome wrote:No, once we abandon the principle of evidence-based thinking, we abandon the basis on which to expel anyone who departs from it. It's simply not worth the risk for the sake of one or two extra 'socialists' who just also happen to believe in God.No need whatsoever to abandon 'evidence-based thinking'! (Robbo has already mentioned that religious people can and do adopt evidence-based thinking; e.g whenever they cross the road).
Not a particularly good analogy; crossing a road safely has more to do with learned behaviour and an instinct for survival rather than to any conscious "evidence-based thinking" process.
robbo203 wrote:Correct me if I am wrong, Dave , but does not your branch have a regular supporter who holds religious views. Apart from the fact that she holds religious views, is there anything about what she says that contradicts the basics of the Party's outlook?Not obviously or directly but when a practicing Catholic makes statements such as "the Party is doing God's work" it makes me (and others) feel distinctly and, perhaps irrationally, uneasy. She understands and appreciates the dichotomy but nevertheless remains keen and willing to assist, as a supporter, in any way she can. But then she would, wouldn't she, given her opinion on the subject?
pfbcarlisle wrote:No need whatsoever to abandon 'evidence-based thinking'!But the latest philosophers of science say that ‘theory’ determines ‘evidence’.Thus, humans have ‘thinking-based evidence’, and not the contrary, which many members seem to erroneously believe. Carr's analogy of the 'fisherman fishing for fish' is relevent, here. ‘Evidence-based thinking’ is induction, and is a remnant of 19th century positivist science, as embraced by Engels.
jondwhite wrote:I don't think the exclusion of the religious (or deists) excludes enough idealists.Ahhh, the Engelsian bogeyman of ‘idealism’, yet again. Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’. This religious belief in ‘materialism’ comes from Engels, not Marx.Marx was an ‘idealist-materialist’. Ideas are at the heart of human understanding. If we disagree with one form of 'ideas', all well and good, spell out why our ideas disagree with those ideas, but don't pretend 'they' are idealists, whilst we are 'materialists', and that should form the basis for rejection of 'religious' views.
jondwhite wrote:A good PR approach is a materialist idea, based on material reality of the effect of good PR. Idealists would be indifferent or not be interested in a good PR approach.‘Materialism’ has been, and still is, disastrous for the proletariat. The religious belief that the ‘material’ tells us what ‘it is’ is a lie. If I ask jdw what ‘material reality is’, and ask for the scientific method they employ to discover it, they can’t answer. If jdw thinks that ‘material reality’ tells us what it is, they’re following Lenin. The ‘Party’ lies that it knows better than the class what ‘material conditions’ are. That question can only be decided by the proletariat, by humanity taking a vote. The ‘truth’ about ‘material reality’ is a product of a society, not a reflection of ‘material reality’ which can be ‘discovered’ by an elite. Knowing the ‘material’ requires ‘ideas’, that is, 'Theory and Practice’.Whilst the SPGB fails to clarify its views about ‘science’ (and thus ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’), any discussion about ‘religious beliefs’ will be confused.Not least, because ‘materialism’ is itself a ‘religious belief’, and that cult is named ‘Scientific Socialism’. One might as well follow 'The Moonies'. Or twc's mystifying rants.
LBird wrote:Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’.Was that the same guy that said that circles are a type of square? He was friends with the guy that thinks that it was true that the sun used to go around the earth wasn't he?
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’.Was that the same guy that said that circles are a type of square? He was friends with the guy that thinks that it was true that the sun used to go around the earth wasn't he?
Rather than mocking that which you do not understand, DJP, you should be asking 'why' you think that 'materialism' and 'idealism' form exclusive opposites, and then trying to find out 'who' provided you with this 'why'.I've already told you 'who' and 'why', but you keep 'ignoring evidence', because it doesn't fit your 'theory'.You'd be better exposing your ideology than merely castigating the 'religious' for theirs. Or, indeed, mocking me and Marx for our 'idealism-marerialism'.Unless the SPGB takes on this task, of uncovering the 'ideas' behind various stances, the discussion about 'religion' will remain unclear.Religion must be undermined at the level of 'ideas', not by pretending that 'materialists' have a special insight into the nature of reality. They don't, and to argue otherwise is 'idealism'. By that, I mean false, and a mystification (just like 'religion') of the human understanding of our reality.'Scientific Socialism' is a cult. A religious cult.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’.Was that the same guy that said that circles are a type of square? He was friends with the guy that thinks that it was true that the sun used to go around the earth wasn't he?
Lol, I have to say, DJP, that's it in a nutshell!
Vin Maratty wrote:DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Unfortunately, as many thinkers have pointed out, ‘materialism’ is a form of ‘idealism’.Was that the same guy that said that circles are a type of square? He was friends with the guy that thinks that it was true that the sun used to go around the earth wasn't he?
Lol, I have to say, DJP, that's it in a nutshell!
Yet another demonstration of ignorance from a unthinking devotee of Engels' 'materialism'.DJP and Vin might as well be sniggering dismissively, 'LBird says the world existed before 4004BC!'Neither has actually read any views about the 'idealism' of 'materialism', and so dismiss the very thought out-of-hand.Their high-priest forbids their considering this. No argument or debate – just the dismissing of critical views. Bit like 'religion', eh?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.