The Religion word
- This topic has 527 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:No argument or debate – just the dismissing of critical views. Bit like 'religion', eh?
Well if you think that having pretty much the same conversation for about a year now amounts to no argument or debate, feel free..I'm pretty sure everyone's bored of it now.
Just like the religious get bored of atheists demanding proof of god, eh?We're 'having pretty much the same conversation' because the 'Religious Socialists' (AKA 'materialists' or 'scientific socialists') won't tell us godless communists where they get their ideas from.The materialists insist 'ideas' come from 'material', whereas we communists insist ideas come from humans. That's why ideas, productive property, morals and science must all be under the democratic control of humanity, and not under the political control of a subset (the notorious 'educators', as Marx puts it), of 'materialists', priests or scientists.Our class' control of human understanding must be democratic.That's the 'idea' that forms the basis of our opposition to religion. We can outvote any 'god' who is produced and placed before us, by 'believers'. Or, the slogan 'One god, one vote; 7 billion of us are voting, too'And that includes outvoting 'The Cadre Party', of the Leninists and 'materialists', who always aim for the control by a few, whether political, scientific or religious.
LBird wrote:The materialists insist 'ideas' come from 'material', whereas we communists insist ideas come from humans.Ideas come from humans (and other animals) yes I agree. But humans and their ideas are just another part / aspect of the material / physical world *because that is all that exists*.Remember I agreed with you about the faults of a crude "base-superstructure" model of "historical materialism"…
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:The materialists insist 'ideas' come from 'material', whereas we communists insist ideas come from humans.Ideas come from humans (and other animals) yes I agree. But humans and their ideas are just another part / aspect of the material / physical world *because that is all that exists*.
If 'ideas' are 'just another part of the material', why don't rocks have ideas? Why don't ideas come from humans, animals and rocks, if the term 'material' is sufficient to cover all aspects?What's more, this alleged 'material substratum' is not the focus of Marx's ideas: human interaction with the 'material' is his focus.This two-sidedness, of 'material and ideas', of 'object and subject', of 'theory and practice' of 'humans and nature', of 'being and consciousness' is captured by 'two-fold' terms, like 'idealism-materialism'…
DJP wrote:Remember I agreed with you about the faults of a crude "base-superstructure" model of "historical materialism"…… or, indeed, 'historical materialism'.In a nutshell, DJP, 'materialism' is crude. So crude, that it provides us with no defence against the 'religious', who can also read of the travails of 'science' since Einstein. And Engels himself distanced himself from it, with notions of the 'final analysis', etc., which undermines every other analysis of the 'material', and never comes anyway. Waiting for the 'final' is like waiting for…We must shift the focus, like Marx did, to the mass of humans on this planet, and their activities and thoughts, and away from false gods like 'Him', 'The Party', 'The Truth'…… or 'The Material' of Engels.
It's a shame that yet another thread has fallen victim to the same point being made religiously.
LBird wrote:If 'ideas' are 'just another part of the material', why don't rocks have ideas? Why don't ideas come from humans, animals and rocks, if the term 'material' is sufficient to cover all aspects?I might suggest the highly contronversial hypotheisis that this is because rocks don't have brains.Ideas are just the functional activity of the brain. Nothing more and nothing less, just like digestion is the functional activity of the gut.What's your take on it?
Quote:In a nutshell, DJP, 'materialism' is crude. So crude, that it provides us with no defence against the 'religious', who can also read of the travails of 'science' since Einstein.What's crude is your narrow understanding of what is meant by physicalism / materialism. Einstein was a materialist after all!Watch the Dennett or Harris video's I posted. Or re-read the quote by Sokal. All these people are materialists and in no way put forward the kind of two dimensional thinking that you think that "materialism" should amount to…
Ah well, to think, I actually thought I was getting somewhere, for a moment…Well, good luck to you and Vin in defending the party with the trusty shield of 'materialism', against the religious…It's like 19th century cavalry against 20th century tanks – and the Pope now even has the armoured divisions, in spite of Stalin's jest.When will we learn?Don't forget to feed Neddy, Vin.
gnome wrote: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?
On the question of "evidence-based thinking", I am sympathetic to the point L Bird is making – that ‘theory’ determines ‘evidence’, that there is an element of selection of the evidence to fit the theory which in turn is inevitably conditioned by our values. There is no such thing as a "value-free science" and particularly so in the case of the social sciences where the problem of reflexivity is all too apparent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29). But setting that caveat aside for the moment (since it is not really what this thread is about), I would question whether religious folk are less inclined to "evidence-based thinking" than "scientific socialists" or, indeed, that the latter are any less prone to irrational thinking than the former. We are all human beings, whether we are religious-minded or atheists and, as such, are subject to both rational and irrational patterns of thinking. Crossing the road safely may not be a particularly good example of evidence-based thinking but there are plenty of other examples one could draw upon. There are, for instance, numerous scientists who routinely resort to evidence based thinking but are religious in outlook. Some even use science to justify their religious beliefs.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Russell_%28author%29) On the question of the Party sympathiser in Dave's branch who happens to be a practising catholic and believes "the Party is doing Gods work", well, at the end of the day, does it really matter if she believes this? Seriously. So long as she agrees with the basic principles of the Party, that really is all that should mattter. It's so easy to slip into a mode of thinking that is more appropriate to a philosphical debating club than a practical revolutionary socialist organisation concerned with bringing about socialism. Thats all that should matter. The business of the Party should not be about promoting an atheistic worldview but about establishing socialism and the sooner the better. The Party's policy on not admitting socialists with religious beliefs is, as I have repeatedly said, completely redundant and serves no purpose except to restrict the growth of the Party itself However, Im a realist and I know many SPGBers are unlikely to change their minds on the matter all too soon. Which is why a compromise position might be appropriate. That is to say, to make a distinction between individuals belonging to organised religions and individuals merely holding personal religious beliefs. and allow the latter to join. What do comrades in the SPGB think of that.? I for one (and I am certain there are others ) would be interested to know….
I doubt if the SPGB is likely to change its mind regarding those with personal spiritual belief Robbo, consider the fact that the party line on the ethical aspect of socialism is rejected in favour of a purely scientific nature.What is hilarious regarding this issue, is that this thread has 28,981 hits. It keeps popping up every now and again, it even gets hits when not in use. Any number of conclusions could be drawn from this fact, at the very least it proves how interested people are in the issue.Wouldn't it be a little embarrassing if many of those checking out this thread, were potential socialists with personal spiritual beliefs. Unfortunately there is no way of finding out.
robbo203 wrote:On the question of "evidence-based thinking", I am sympathetic to the point L Bird is making – that ‘theory’ determines ‘evidence’, that there is an element of selection of the evidence to fit the theory which in turn is inevitably conditioned by our values. There is no such thing as a "value-free science" … But setting that caveat aside for the moment (since it is not really what this thread is about)…I don't think that your acceptance of the notion of 'thinking-based evidence' can be set aside so easily, robbo.The metaphysics that we adopt prior to enquiry, that then determine what counts as 'acceptable evidence' is at the heart of this debate. The simple fact is, religious people hold different views about the creative source on this planet.They say 'god', we say 'humanity'. This latter fits with Marx, who argues that humans, by their creative, purposive activity, humanise nature. In other words, god, a puppet of humans who is created by alienated humans, can play no creative part in this process.By its very nature, a belief in god detracts from the power of the proletariat as the creative force in building our 'humanised nature'. The religious think that there is a social power outside of the proletariat. This belief can only weaken our belief in ourselves, and fits with ruling class ideas about there being a power outside of the exploited class.If a religious person argues that their 'god' plays no part in this world, then that is akin to a form of madness – very similar to believing pixies live in one's garage, but can't be seen and do nothing whatsoever to interact with humans. Would we accept into our movement 'pixie belief'?Really, the idea of 'god' needs to be challenged and fought against, rather than allowing this social illness to remain and being allowed to develop.This is a battle of 'ideas', and needs to be fought at that level. Mere asserion of 'materialism' is a dead, 19th century idea, which will lose us the battle with the 'god botherers'.
robbo203 wrote:On the question of the Party sympathiser in Dave's branch who happens to be a practising catholic and believes "the Party is doing Gods work", well, at the end of the day, does it really matter if she believes this? Seriously. So long as she agrees with the basic principles of the Party, that really is all that should mattter.I wouldn't be happy with a 'pixie afficionado' helping me to build a 'non-pixie' world. It should be made plain that the party is neither working for pixies or god, and anyone believing this is likely to be disappointed with the fruit of their party labours. A fervently anti-pixie society.
robbo203 wrote:The business of the Party should not be about promoting an atheistic worldview but about establishing socialism and the sooner the better.To me, building socialism is synonymous with an 'atheistic worldview'. Socialism is humanity in the driving seat, not the pixies (or any other imaginary beings).I'm not a party member, so perhaps my views rightly should carry no weight in this internal debate, but neither could I imagine being involved with the religious in the future, so it would put me off getting involved with a party that allowed a pixie-lover to have the same power and input as me, about decisions affecting the proletariat.
SocialistPunk wrote:I doubt if the SPGB is likely to change its mind regarding those with personal spiritual belief Robbo, consider the fact that the party line on the ethical aspect of socialism is rejected in favour of a purely scientific nature.This 'party line' is yet another aspect of idealism, akin to religion.If 'ethics' don't come from humans, and are thus amenable to a democratic vote, from where do they orginate? Nature? 'Neutral' scientific method?'Scientific Socialists' and religious believers are cut from the same cloth.The 'god' being 'purely scientific nature'. Both are nonsense. Marx argues for 'humanised nature', and our ethics will spring from our new society, by our decisions and our choices, not from the 'rocks' of a 'material world' outside of humans, whether they have brains or not.'Idealism' is the belief that will, purpose and creativity come from outside of humanity. 'Idealism' is not the use of ideas, as the 'materialists' insist.It is idealism to be a materialist. Marx wasn't a materialist, or an idealist. He believed that humans are the source of ideas to change the world. We need to clarify our ideas, especially in contrast to the religious. 'Historical Materialism' is synonymous with 'Idealism-Materialism'. Our ideas must work in this world. Waiting for matter to determine our future is passive, not creative.Ignoring this, with regard to the religious, in favour of 'building the movement', will lead to tears. Ours, as well as those of the religious.
Sources. Marx on his Own Materialism“I am a Materialist”Marx to Dr Kugelmann, 6 Mar 1868.[English] “Herr Dühring … knows very well that my method of development is not Hegelian, since I am a materialist and Hegel is an idealist.” [German] “Herr Dühring … weiß sehr wohl, daß meine Entwicklungsmethode nicht die Hegelsche ist, da ich Materialist, Hegel Idealist.” “Materialist Conception”Marx: Grundrisse (Aug/Sep 1857)[English] “4. [Prepare for] accusations about the materialism of this conception;” [German] “4. Vorwürfe über Materialismus dieser Auffassung;”Marx‘s first [?] reference to “materialist conception”. “Materialist Conception of History”Engels: “Review of Marx’s Contribution towards a Critique of Political Economy”, Aug 1859.[English] “The essential foundation of this German political economy is the materialist conception of history whose principal features are briefly outlined in the ‘Preface’ to the above-named work.” [German] “Diese deutsche Ökonomie beruht wesentlich auf der materialistischen Auffassung der Geschichte, deren Grundzüge in der Vorrede des oben zitierten Werks kurz dargelegt sind.”Marx vetted this [semi-authorized] review before publication. He approved of the phrase “materialist conception of history”. “Materialist Basis”Marx to Adolphe Sorge, 19 Oct 1877.[English] “Lassalleans, … Dühring and his ‘admirers’, but also with a whole gang of half-mature students and super-wise doctors [of philosophy] who want to give socialism a ‘higher ideal’ orientation, that is to say, to replace its materialistic basis (which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it) by modern [idealism]. [German] “Lassalleanern, … Dühring und seinen ‘Bewunderern ’, außerdem aber mit einer ganzen Bande halbreifer Studiosen und überweiser Doctores, die dem Sozialismus ein ‘höhere, ideale’ Wendung geben wollen, d.h. die materialistische Basis (die ernstes, objektives Studium erheischt, wenn man auf ihr operieren will) zu ersetzen durch moderne [Idealismus].” “Material Production is the Basis of Social Life”Marx: Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 7[English]. “the development of material production, which is the basis of all social life, and therefore of all real history” “Materialist Method is the Only Scientific Method”Capital Vol. 1, Chapter 15[English]. “Technology discloses man’s mode of dealing with Nature, the process of production by which he sustains his life, and thereby also lays bare the mode of formation of his social relations, and of the mental conceptions that flow from them. Every history of religion, even, that fails to take account of this material basis, is uncritical. It is, in reality, much easier to discover by analysis the earthly core of the misty creations of religion, than, conversely, it is, to develop from the actual relations of life the corresponding celestialised forms of those relations. The latter method is the only materialistic, and therefore the only scientific method.”In relation to the present topic, religion, Marx’s only scientific [=materialist] method—“which demands serious objective study from anyone who tries to use it”—is to start with the “actual relations of life” and develop from them their “corresponding” religious forms.Kautsky attempted this with some success a century ago in his “Foundations of Christianity” at http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1908/christ/.There’s even a Jack Fitzgerald review from the Socialist Standard, July 1925, at http://www.marxists.org/archive/fitzgerald/kautskybook.htm.On the other hand, Marx’s far-more-sophisticated successors are overly concerned to reinterpret Marx in their own brilliantly penetrating way than to dirty their anti-materialist hands by doing anything so scientifically crass as adopting his approach and constructively achieving something new with it, as Marx had every reasonable right to expect his socialist successors to do, after he had done the necessary spadework.
Yeah, for the religious, 'scriptural authority' from the past is always preferably to 'discussion' now.
LBird wrote:Marx wasn't a materialistKarl Marx wrote:I am a materialistObviously it was Marx that was wrong.
DJP wrote:LBird wrote:Marx wasn't a materialistKarl Marx wrote:I am a materialistObviously it was Marx that was wrong.
You were right when you said that the last few months have been a waste of time for you.All that discussion about meaning…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.