Is it "necessary" to criticize religion?

[Zukunftsmusik]

Firstly, some clarifying: With the title of this thread, I don't mean critique as in "Religion is chauvinistic/discriminating" etc. This criticism I find "necessary" or correct. The criticism I think of, is that against religion "in itself" -- f. ex. that a belief in God is wrong.

The reason I ask this, is that Marx writes (and i guess this also is fundamental in Marxism) that religion or the leading thoughts of a society is "created" by its social conditions. Which would mean that the social conditions under capitalism create the idea that f. ex. wage labour is the only way labour works and can work.

The social conditions of a society creates its religions. Therefore, Marx argues, communism would lead to the ending of religion, because it's a human society by humans for humans. Shouldn't we then just be concentrating on the social revolution, and wait for religion to "wither away"?

[Kamos]

Shouldn't we then just be concentrating on the social revolution, and wait for religion to "wither away"?

Yes, we should. Religion is not something rational, you cannot deal with it in a rational way (meaning that we can't convince masses of people to turn away from it). Religion will disappear due to lack of demand.

[Octavian]

Religion has and will be done away overtime with the more religious people dieing off and the younger generation recognizing it's faults. I do believe it should be criticized still because it causes people to act irrationally and holds back science.

[Blackburn]

I have known science minded rational free thinkers who were also members of a mainstream religion (ie Christianity). However, the vast majority of 'followers' do not rationally examine or challenge their own beliefs. But then they don't examine other commonly held belefs of things like Economics etc either.

[thesadmafioso]

Religion is something which runs contrary to the materialist and scientific thought of Marxist theory and it is something to be combated on that philosophical basis alone.

Of course, blind critique is not always the most effectual method to go about achieving this intent. Religion is the result of material conditions which have long driven the proletariat into a desperate state wherein they are made susceptible to the idealistic trappings of the bourgeoisie. Once the economic conditions which breed the proliferation of religious thought cease, it should wither away as it loses its demand. There are many instances when workers movements will have some ties to religion, and issue should not be made of this in any short term fashion of aimless critique.

Assailing the theory of religion should certainly not be rejected though, as the value of such labor in regards to the grander theoretical aims of Marxism is undeniably immense. Religion needs to be actively opposed by Marxist thinkers in the realm of philosophy and theory, but at the same time some degree of reconciliation is still needed in the context of practice in its earlier stages.

[ComradeMan]

Religion is something which runs contrary to the materialist and scientific thought of Marxist theory and it is something to be combated on that philosophical basis alone.

Except for the fact that "Marxism" is not all that scientific..... :rolleyes:

It's dangerous to start arguing for marxism with scientific justifications. Everytime the Marxist experiment has been carried out in the "laboratory" of society it has failed with a couple of anomalous exceptions. "Marxism" predicts struggles but not results.

[Dogs On Acid]

Except for the fact that "Marxism" is not all that scientific..... :rolleyes:

sci·ence/ˈsīəns/Noun

1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Religion deserves criticism as much as anything else.

Attacking one for being religious personally though is a different matter. And alienating them from struggle is probably not a good idea. no need to be divisive when its really not an issue. unless you decide to make it an issue.

[ComradeMan]

sci·ence/ˈsīəns/Noun

1. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

But not predicting beforehand based on assumptions....

[Octavian]

But not predicting beforehand based on assumptions....
They were based on observations.

[ComradeMan]

They were based on observations.

How empirical were those observations? Marx is also notoriously inconsistent-

The fundamental weakness is on the objective empiricism of "class"- if all history is basically class struggle, then what is a class? Marx does not give us one "solid" and consistent definition of class. Even the division of society is not consistent- one minute there are two classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie , Das Kapital II: 348, yet in the Manifesto there are three, Das Kapital: III, 604- introducing the landowner class.

[Octavian]

How empirical were those observations? Marx is also notoriously inconsistent-

The fundamental weakness is on the objective empiricism of "class"- if all history is basically class struggle, then what is a class? Marx does not give us one "solid" and consistent definition of class. Even the division of society is not consistent- one minute there are two classes, proletariat and bourgeoisie , Das Kapital II: 348, yet in the Manifesto there are three, Das Kapital: III, 604- introducing the landowner class.
There's a clear difference between a social science and hard science. The landowner is the petit-bourgeoisie. Think of it as a sub-class.

[Quail]

I think that it's necessary to criticise people for believing in something for which there is no evidence, whether that is a religion or any other belief. Taking things on faith alone isn't a good way of trying to understand the world. I also think that we should criticise the power strictures in organised religion and attitudes such as sexism and homophobia.

[Dogs On Acid]

"Religion... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? - because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'. The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'."

-Douglas Adams

[PhoenixAsh]

I make a distinction between believing in (a; or multiple) God(s) and the hierarchical believe structures.

Inherrently what somebody believes in and how (to what moral and ethical code for example) somebody wants to live their lives is up to them. Believe is between an induvidual and his or her respective God(s) and should remain that way until somebody asks or until it comes up.

Creating a system of those believes and creating hierarchical structures in which a doctrine prescribes others how to live their lives and to what moral and ethical code they are bound is, in my opinion, surpassing the supposed connection of the induvidual and the supra natural being(s) and enforces rules and forces people into a social corset contrary to their own will based on fear even if that is voluntarilly undergone.

I don't see anything inherrently wrong with believing in God; Goddesses or Antropomorphic figures to which an induvidual ascribes greater power and wisdom as long as that believe remains personal.

Nor do I see this world getting better when we adhere solely to scientific principles and a scientific world view....since science is all to often a simple tool of political and economic powers and the answers are not always clear cut or consistent....nor do they apply equally well on all aspects of life. Since science depends on conclusions and subjective interpretation of observable and reproduceable "facts" science is NOT always an objective skill. Everybody spending some time in a hospital knows this to be a simple observable and reproduceable fact ;)

[Dogs On Acid]

I make a distinction between believing in (a; or multiple) God(s) and the hierarchical believe structures.

Inherrently what somebody believes in and how (to what moral and ethical code for example) somebody wants to live their lives is up to them. Believe is between an induvidual and his or her respective God(s) and should remain that way until somebody asks or until it comes up.

Creating a system of those believes and creating hierarchical structures in which a doctrine prescribes others how to live their lives and to what moral and ethical code they are bound is, in my opinion, surpassing the supposed connection of the induvidual and the supra natural being(s) and enforces rules and forces people into a social corset contrary to their own will based on fear even if that is voluntarilly undergone.

I don't see anything inherrently wrong with believing in God; Goddesses or Antropomorphic figures to which an induvidual ascribes greater power and wisdom as long as that believe remains personal.

Nor do I see this world getting better when we adhere solely to scientific principles and a scientific world view....since science is all to often a simple tool of political and economic powers and the answers are not always clear cut or consistent....nor do they apply equally well on all aspects of life. Since science depends on conclusions and subjective interpretation of observable and reproduceable "facts" science is NOT always an objective skill. Everybody spending some time in a hospital knows this to be a simple observable and reproduceable fact ;)

It isn't the fact that we believe in God that can be counter-productive to society or oppressive, it's the moral codes and superstition that comes with it, and the inevitable indoctrination that many religious parents give their children from a young age.

I'm a pantheist, or as Richard Dawkins calls it, a sexed-up atheist. I consider Nature to be "God", as it is Nature that defines and creates, not some old man with a beard sitting on a cloud, or outside the material universe.

Believing it God is ultimately anti-Marxist, hierarchical, and anti-Materialist.

Communists should not try to ban religion, because it's ineffective, but instead promote Atheism and freedom of mind.

Religion is a system of control, and hand-in-hand with fear, oppression and violence.

[Dogs On Acid]

IuGWzSagohU

[PhoenixAsh]

It isn't the fact that we believe in God that can be counter-productive to society or oppressive, it's the moral codes and superstition that comes with it, and the inevitable indoctrination that many religious parents give their children from a young age.

You mean that very same inevitable indoctrination atheist parents give their children? Because thats the same moral codes and dogmatic believe structure.

I personally don't give a rats ass what people believe. As long as they believe it in private and they do not bother others with it. That goes for believe in God or for Atheists. They both can suck a twig for all I care....they are both fucking annoying as a group and they are both equally repressive in their attitudes.

If that pisses people off...good,...think about what you are doing. The continuous arguments wether or not the believe in God or the faith in science should be predominant in peoples minds is getting very stale.



I'm a pantheist, or as Richard Dawkins calls it, a sexed-up atheist.I simply am. I do not believe in God and I do not create a believe structure out of the notion of there being no God.


I consider Nature to be "God", as it is Nature that defines and creates, not some old man with a beard sitting on a cloud, or outside the material universe.Well...prove it. Because its a no brainer. If science is the way...proof God does not exist if you can't let people believe what they want to believe as long as they do not build hierarchical sturctures on that basis.

As far as history goes...neither people who believe nor atheist have been able to conclusively prove each other wrong. In other words...nobody disproved or proved the pink unicorn and nobody proved or disproved God.

Also...what is the nature of nature? Because as it seems now there is either a plan towards creation...a design or we are dealing with the utmost unlikelyhood of coincidence stacking.

If its the first...nature apparantly works intelligently. If its the last then apparantly nature is just non existent...and we create that notion to validate and structure our environment based on theoretical notions to give life meaning.




Believing it God is ultimately anti-Marxist, hierarchical, and anti-Materialist.If all that exists is material then the believe in God is material as well since human consciousness and thoughts...according to materialism derive from the interaction of matter....as such the believe in God is part of the materialist structure...on a grander scale one could argue that since all is matter the assumption you have that God is non-material is perhaps a bit strange.

Equally the idea that Marxism is an ultimate authority...is in itself authoritarian. As such if we should build society according to Marxism therefore Marxism would place itself in the role of leading hierarchical structure.

Just some food for thought.




Communists should not try to ban religion, because it's ineffective, but instead promote Atheism and freedom of mind.I think communists should denounce all hierarchical structures and should not involve itself with people on an induvidual level and let them believe what they want to believe as long as they keep it personal. I think it should protect the induvidual authonomy of hierarchical structures but not from itself.



Religion is a system of control, and hand-in-hand with fear, oppression and violence.Religion =/ believing in God.

[danyboy27]

Its necesary to criticize everything, religion, science politics, everything.

[Desperado]

The criticism I think of, is that against religion "in itself" -- f. ex. that a belief in God is wrong.


We jump into a semantics entanglement here - is plain theism a religion, etc. - but accepting for a moment that it is, everything just depends on what you mean by criticism. I criticise the idea, because it's wrong. Will I go around campaigning against it? Got better things to spend time doing (not to mention that it would be counter productive). As you pointed out, it's the expressions and institutions (which can vary from friendly hippies loving everyone to the Spanish Inquisition) of the core irrational beliefs that can cause the big harm. Imaginary friends is hardly the number one problem in the world. From a Marxian historical analysis, I might be tempted say that the core beliefs barely matter - the bibles contents almost count for naught, what matters is the ruling class and how they'll interpret it to whack the poor. Ideas don't drive history - the class struggle does.

In the last part of your post you are asking for us to just focus on revolution and ignore all the other ills. War and racism are also the result of the economic situation, but we should still focus on being anti-war and anti-racism. On Marx, though his most famous words on religion can be interpreted in many ways (does "opium" mean something to delude, or painkiller, or both?), he also said that the immediate abolition of religion would be the best thing for increasing human happiness - so he was certainly an unequivocal anti-theist outside of his wider views. His self-described purpose was to "dethrone God and destroy capitalism".

Whatever the case, I think it's fair to assume Marx speaks of religion in the institutional sense.

[Black Sheep]

I am a not only a communist, but an enemy to irrationality as well, so i consider it necessary.

[Blackburn]

I am a not only a communist, but an enemy to irrationality as well, so i consider it necessary.

Not a fan of love?

[Dogs On Acid]

Not a fan of love?

What?

Love is chemicals, namely oxytocin.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Chemical_basis_of_love.png

[Zukunftsmusik]

In the last part of your post you are asking for us to just focus on revolution and ignore all the other ills. War and racism are also the result of the economic situation, but we should still focus on being anti-war and anti-racism.

Thanks for planting my legs back on earth again. I might need that sometimes.

Having said that I think I mostly agree with what you wrote. Religion as an institution is of course the worst side of religion, and probably the weakest point -- the easiest point to focus criticism. Showing that organised religion is a hierarchy, which controls its followers is, I guess, more "productive" than just simply pointing out that "Your personal belief in God is wrong".

[tradeunionsupporter]

Yes I believe it is.

[tbasherizer]

I don't think it's necessary to straight up ask someone if they're religious and then tell them they're wrong, but it's necessary to build up a religion-free worldview in their mind so they can realize it anyway. If you start with the scientific basics and work your way up to historical materialism and memetics, then there's no way that they can deny their denial of a God. Hurrah for triple negatives!

Criticizing religion shouldn't be a part of one's agitation unless the person you're arguing uses religion as the rationale for views contrary to the socialist platform.

[ComradeMan]

If you start with the scientific basics and work your way up to historical materialism and memetics, then there's no way that they can deny their denial of a God. Hurrah for triple negatives!
.

Except for the fact that both of those are open to criticism and are by no means "hard and fast".

In particular, memetics has been called pseudo-scientific dogma and what exactly are memes anyway from an ontological perspective?

[hatzel]

It's not necessary to do anything, unless you're a complete slave to ideology who feels like relinquishing themselves to some external decision-maker which declares what is and isn't necessary, and negating their own will and desire in the face of the ideologue's. In which case you probably aren't the best person to criticise religion, let's be honest here...

[tbasherizer]

Except for the fact that both of those are open to criticism and are by no means "hard and fast".

In particular, memetics has been called pseudo-scientific dogma and what exactly are memes anyway from an ontological perspective?

Forgive me then. I meant that when trying to convince someone of your viewpoints, you should start with the scientifically obvious and build up to whatever it is you believe in. Assuming, of course, that there is a scientific basis for your ideology.

[ComradeMan]

Forgive me then. I meant that when trying to convince someone of your viewpoints, you should start with the scientifically obvious and build up to whatever it is you believe in. Assuming, of course, that there is a scientific basis for your ideology.

Io faccio i cazzi miei! ;) Except I don't try to convince anyone of my beliefs to be honest, they are personal- what I object to is people trying to dis-convince of my own fucking beliefs when it makes no fucking difference to them what I believe in the first place.

[Hit The North]

Io faccio i cazzi miei! ;) Except I don't try to convince anyone of my beliefs to be honest, they are personal- what I object to is people trying to dis-convince of my own fucking beliefs when it makes no fucking difference to them what I believe in the first place.

So basically you are saying that you cannot defend your religious beliefs and would rather not open them to the scrutiny of others. This leaves you as the only arbiter of the correctness of your religious "knowledge". This makes your justification even more irrational than those of organised religions. At least they are willing to discuss and debate their beliefs. They do not consider their religious "knowledge" to be entirely a personal matter but a true representation of an objective quality of reality. To argue that your core beliefs are somehow personal and, therefore, immune to the critical examination of others leads to pure solipsism. It also appears to suggest that you believe that your religious beliefs are derived from a personal source, unique to you, and not derived from your social influences. So your position is also an arrogant one, as well as a form of philosophical idealism.

This retreat into "personal religions" is a product of the extreme individualisation of modern Western capitalism and tends to be practised by relatively privileged individuals. But the vast majority of religious believers in all societies belong to, and show fidelity to, organised religions and to well established scriptural authorities.

So the notion, put forth by Hindsight 20/20, that we can somehow separate the personal beliefs of the religious from the hold and sway of organised religion in society, has little political currency.

Let's be clear: a dramatic increase in the hold that religious ideas have over the masses, an intensity of its motive power within society, nearly always, leads to disaster for the working class. Political Islam is the enemy of the working class. Fundamentalist Christianity is an enemy of the working class. Even the much cited liberation theology of Latin America is a break on the struggle of workers and an attempt by religious institutions to impose their hegemony.

So, yes, in the real world, especially in the Muslim world and in the Americas, the critique of religion remains an important task for communist revolutionaries.

[Thirsty Crow]

Except for the fact that "Marxism" is not all that scientific..... :rolleyes:

It's dangerous to start arguing for marxism with scientific justifications. Everytime the Marxist experiment has been carried out in the "laboratory" of society it has failed with a couple of anomalous exceptions. "Marxism" predicts struggles but not results.
What a load of crap.
The scientific basis of Marxism is not tied in directly to the political practice of movements and organizations which claim Marxism as their analythical method.
That also has bering upon the issue of prediction of specific developments in class struggle.
On the other hand, the core of every religious practice is inherently unscientific. There's no wiggling around this fundamental trait which makes religious practice what it actually is, in opposition to material practices such encompassed by the term class struggle and ways of analyzing the state of the world such as historical materialism.

[ComradeMan]

What a load of crap.
The scientific basis of Marxism is not tied in directly to the political practice of movements and organizations which claim Marxism as their analythical method.
That also has bering upon the issue of prediction of specific developments in class struggle.
On the other hand, the core of every religious practice is inherently unscientific. There's no wiggling around this fundamental trait which makes religious practice what it actually is, in opposition to material practices such encompassed by the term class struggle and ways of analyzing the state of the world such as historical materialism.


Show me how it is scientific then...

[Thirsty Crow]

Show me how it is scientific then...
First of all, it is based on the examination of concrete, existing material organization of production, which is also a material endeavour, aimed at transformation of nature for the benefit of human beings.

You can already see how this departs from the basis of religion.

[ComradeMan]

So basically you are saying that you cannot defend your religious beliefs and would rather not open them to the scrutiny of others.

No, I am saying that whatever someone's personal life-philosophy choice is, is up to that person and as long as they don't force their views on others then it makes as much difference as arguing why one person might prefer Chopin and another Šostakovič or yet another might not like the piano at all- de gustibus non disputandum est.

Why the hell should anyone be forced to open up their own personal beliefs and philosophies to the scrutiny of others anyway? As long as they don't interfere with someone else.


This leaves you as the only arbiter of the correctness of your religious "knowledge".

Err... that's right, because it's like...err.... my life and my spiritual/philosophical outlook. ;)


At least they are willing to discuss and debate their beliefs. They do not consider their religious "knowledge" to be entirely a personal matter but a true representation of an objective quality of reality.

That's up to them.


To argue that your core beliefs are somehow personal and, therefore, immune to the critical examination of others leads to pure solipsism.

Om.....


It also appears to suggest that you believe that your religious beliefs are derived from a personal source, unique to you, and not derived from your social influences. So your position is also an arrogant one, as well as a form of philosophical idealism.

No two people are the same, so no two people will ever have exactly the same carbon-copy outlook on life or philosophies- independent to their external social influences.


This retreat into "personal religions" is a product of the extreme individualisation of modern Western capitalism and tends to be practised by relatively privileged individuals. But the vast majority of religious believers in all societies belong to, and show fidelity to, organised religions and to well established scriptural authorities.

:laugh::laugh::laugh: "If you meet the Buddha on the road you must kill him."

You've not heard of many indigenous people's spirituality that relies on personal "revelation" or insights have you?

Seems like your arguing somehow for the superiority of organised religion.


Let's be clear: a dramatic increase in the hold that religious ideas have over the masses, an intensity of its motive power within society, nearly always, leads to disaster for the working class.

Can you actually quantify that statement though? :rolleyes:


Political Islam is the enemy of the working class. Fundamentalist Christianity is an enemy of the working class. Even the much cited liberation theology of Latin America is a break on the struggle of workers and an attempt by religious institutions to impose their hegemony.

Because all religious/spiritual people are Islamists or Fundies. :rolleyes: And you're inaccurate about liberation theology too- as far as I knew the established church were against it and it was more of a bottom up development. I notice you conveniently ignore things like the Catholic Worker Movement, Juan Luis Segundo here's a link in Spanish
(http://www.horaciobojorge.org/segundo.html)Father Camilo Torres Restrepo who was killed in combat- here's another link (http://www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/24494-NN/camilo-torres-a-42-anos-de-la-muerte-del-sacerdote-revolucionario/)in Spanish, his famous quote being "si Jesús viviera, sería guerrillero".


So, yes, in the real world, especially in the Muslim world and in the Americas, the critique of religion remains an important task for communist revolutionaries.

Instead of perhaps focusing on the material and economic realities that give rise to such social institutions. :laugh:

Karl Marx: "The religious world is but the reflex of the real world." Das Kapital (Buch I) (1867) Vol. I, Ch. 1, Section 4, ;)

[Ostrinski]

If you believe in the material conception of history I'm not sure why you would feel the need.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

So basically you are saying that you cannot defend your religious beliefs and would rather not open them to the scrutiny of others. This leaves you as the only arbiter of the correctness of your religious "knowledge". This makes your justification even more irrational than those of organised religions. At least they are willing to discuss and debate their beliefs. They do not consider their religious "knowledge" to be entirely a personal matter but a true representation of an objective quality of reality. To argue that your core beliefs are somehow personal and, therefore, immune to the critical examination of others leads to pure solipsism. It also appears to suggest that you believe that your religious beliefs are derived from a personal source, unique to you, and not derived from your social influences. So your position is also an arrogant one, as well as a form of philosophical idealism.

This retreat into "personal religions" is a product of the extreme individualisation of modern Western capitalism and tends to be practised by relatively privileged individuals. But the vast majority of religious believers in all societies belong to, and show fidelity to, organised religions and to well established scriptural authorities.

So the notion, put forth by Hindsight 20/20, that we can somehow separate the personal beliefs of the religious from the hold and sway of organised religion in society, has little political currency.


I think you are extrapolating too much. I agree that all religion should be open to public debate, but at the same time we must understand that religion almost always comes from a type of personal experience which is impossible to translate perfectly into public language. Most organized religion denies this because their power is based on the assumption that you can translate such ideas into a common narrative, however organized religion always coexists with a less organized mystical component. Mysticism predates the "personalization" of religion that you speak of, going back thousands of years, and exists in many communities which nobody would say are "privileged".

For instance, Sufi Muslims exist not in middle class new age households but in rural parts of Afghanistan. Tantric Hinduism too exists in rural villages across India. Chinese people of all classes participate in various traditional forms of Chinese mysticism. These are not privileged places and classes, but the followers also believe that religious experience is not something which can be reduced to particular, rationalized doctrines. At the same time, mystical religions are also less likely to try to impose their ideas on others by force (at the same time however there are some exceptions to this)



Let's be clear: a dramatic increase in the hold that religious ideas have over the masses, an intensity of its motive power within society, nearly always, leads to disaster for the working class. Political Islam is the enemy of the working class. Fundamentalist Christianity is an enemy of the working class. Even the much cited liberation theology of Latin America is a break on the struggle of workers and an attempt by religious institutions to impose their hegemony.

So, yes, in the real world, especially in the Muslim world and in the Americas, the critique of religion remains an important task for communist revolutionaries.I do think fundamentalist Islam and Christianity need to be criticized and opposed, but religious movements with political goals are not necessarily bad. Liberation theology, for instance, is not (as you say) just a way to keep church hegemony (as evidenced by the fact that Church hierarchies actually clamped down on and repressed liberation theologians). Liberation theology also does not represent in any ways an increase in the religiosity of the working class, but a way to bring revolutionary collective action to an otherwise very religious working class. For instance, MLK Jr did not create African American Baptism, but used a pre-existing religious tradition which many Southern black americans followed to help encourage mass political action.


First of all, it is based on the examination of concrete, existing material organization of production, which is also a material endeavour, aimed at transformation of nature for the benefit of human beings.

You can already see how this departs from the basis of religion.

This might be true of Abrahamic religions which are more fundamentally idealist, as well as many schools of Indian and Chinese religions as well. However, many religions, especially indigenous religions, are deeply concerned with the maintenance of material conditions. For instance, Mayan religion would have festivals around agricultural cycles-there was the magical component (asking the rain spirit to come), but there is also the material component of bringing everyone together for the planting and harvest cycles. Many religious traditions also have knowledge of and encourage practices of healthy living, such as yoga in India or herbal medicines. It is true that these religions do not view these phenomena in a "scientific" manner, at least not according to the exacting standards of modern scientific methodology, but it is true that these religions do have practices that allow for the improvement of material conditions via practical means.

The dualism you are speaking of is something much more relevant to the European tradition. I agree with you that Marxism does try to be scientific, but it's not true that religion does not necessarily value or focus itself on material labor and conditions. One issue is that not all cultures and religions believe in the materialist/idealist distinction the way that Western philosophy does.


If you believe in the material conception of history I'm not sure why you would feel the need.

This is true. Belief in the need to critique religion in a way is a subtle acceptance of the Idealist thesis that concepts and beliefs shape reality.

[tbasherizer]

If you believe in the material conception of history I'm not sure why you would feel the need.

Good point! I guess I like ragging on religious people because it makes me feel good. Oh my, that's horrible!

[Hit The North]

Why the hell should anyone be forced to open up their own personal beliefs and philosophies to the scrutiny of others anyway? As long as they don't interfere with someone else.


Out of politeness? Out of a common quest for understanding? Out of a commitment to the truth?


No two people are the same, so no two people will ever have exactly the same carbon-copy outlook on life or philosophies- independent to their external social influences. So 2.1 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Muslims, 900 million Hindus and 326 million Buddhists must have arrived at their common understanding by some freak accident? Amazing!


:laugh::laugh::laugh: "If you meet the Buddha on the road you must kill him." If you don't he will eat all the pies and your children will starve.


You've not heard of many indigenous people's spirituality that relies on personal "revelation" or insights have you?
Hey, well, yes I have. But are you telling me that such shamanism does not exist within a definite culture and employs commonly understood and socially transmitted rules of interpretation? Wasn't this spiritual "knowledge" embedded in the traditions and customs of the people? If not, each persons revelation would be unintelligible to the next. But what we find instead is a socially shared code of interpretation, that allows individual revelation to be shared and commonly understood. This is a far cry from the "private spiritual belief" you allude to.


Can you actually quantify that statement though? :rolleyes:Are you kidding? Read some history. You could start with the reactionary role of Christianity in Europe in the first millennia and end with the reactionary role of political Islam in 21st century Asia and North Africa.


Because all religious/spiritual people are Islamists or Fundies. :rolleyes: And you're inaccurate about liberation theology too- as far as I knew the established church were against it and it was more of a bottom up development. I notice you conveniently ignore things like the Catholic Worker Movement, Juan Luis Segundo here's a link in Spanish
(http://www.horaciobojorge.org/segundo.html)Father Camilo Torres Restrepo who was killed in combat- here's another link (http://www.telesurtv.net/secciones/noticias/24494-NN/camilo-torres-a-42-anos-de-la-muerte-del-sacerdote-revolucionario/)in Spanish, his famous quote being "si Jesús viviera, sería guerrillero".
I don't have to ignore the Catholic Workers Movement. Hurray that they were a workers movement. Too bad they had to see themselves as "catholic workers".


Instead of perhaps focusing on the material and economic realities that give rise to such social institutions. :laugh:
This just demonstrates naivety. Analysis of the material and economic realities are an essential part of the Marxist critique of religion.


Karl Marx: "The religious world is but the reflex of the real world." Das Kapital (Buch I) (1867) Vol. I, Ch. 1, Section 4, ;)Yes, it is an illusory world. Your spiritual beliefs are delusions. Let's move on.

[Hit The North]

I think you are extrapolating too much. I agree that all religion should be open to public debate, but at the same time we must understand that religion almost always comes from a type of personal experience which is impossible to translate perfectly into public language.

I disagree. Religious belief always comes from a social experience and, moreover, tends to assert itself as a privileged public language.


Most organized religion denies this because their power is based on the assumption that you can translate such ideas into a common narrative, however organized religion always coexists with a less organized mystical component. Nevertheless most religious believers are orthodox within their respective traditions.


Mysticism predates the "personalization" of religion that you speak of, going back thousands of years, and exists in many communities which nobody would say are "privileged".
But most mytsicism is located within traditions that unite communities. Some of the posters here deny the social roots of their belief, eschew tradition and cleave to their self-referencing and private "revelations" of religious knowledge. This is not the context in which old Testament prophets or Sufi Muslims see their experience.


For instance, Sufi Muslims exist not in middle class new age households but in rural parts of Afghanistan. Tantric Hinduism too exists in rural villages across India. Chinese people of all classes participate in various traditional forms of Chinese mysticism. These are not privileged places and classes, but the followers also believe that religious experience is not something which can be reduced to particular, rationalized doctrines. At the same time, mystical religions are also less likely to try to impose their ideas on others by force (at the same time however there are some exceptions to this) This is all very interesting but unnecessary as I clearly referenced Western new age bohos as "mainly middle class".


Liberation theology, for instance, is not (as you say) just a way to keep church hegemony (as evidenced by the fact that Church hierarchies actually clamped down on and repressed liberation theologians).


Oh, please! Liberation theology is to Catholicism what Labourism is to capitalism: an alternative marketing strategy for the same product being shifted by the same company.