Can Pagans be Marxists? [Archive]

ckaihatsu

20th August 2013, 00:37

It may be possible that the comment was intended to expose the hypocrisy in the fact that religions tolerate capitalism (they tolerated Nazis too in the 1940s)

If we're talking about the *origins* of that phrase, and/or possible *motivations* for its utterance (ideology), I'd readily submit that it's a *conservative* statement, since 'don't discuss religion or politics' seeks to avoid even the least bit of possible controversy over the status quo, and all possible disagreement about the current state of things.

Yes, religious "leadership" in the realm of politics leaves much to be desired -- this organizing principle reveals the source of its internal chaos rather well, imo.... (link seen recently at another thread)

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority. [1] The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.

The word subsidiarity is derived from the Latin word subsidiarius and has its origins in Catholic social teaching.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_%28Catholicism%29

In that, I agree, religions have not done a very good job in exposing the pitfalls of the Capitalist State. The world religions need to denounce the fact that capitalists steal and exploit the worker of his hard work. Personally I think it is a sin that this goes on... but then again, perhaps some of the "religious" people are just interested in wealth and power? Perhaps Jesus ought to come and slap these pious bastards into next week! ;)1

Fakeblock

20th August 2013, 00:43

So, Marxism being of the realm of 'politics', that leaves religion more in the area of one's *worldview* about the natural universe, cosmology, animals, people, etc.

Marxism isn't in the realm of politics though, it is in the realm of all social relations.

According to the religious, the world can be created and manipulated by timeless beings, which is contradictory to any materialist worldview. No acts or ideas exist independently of social relations.

I'm a Muslim who uses histomat to explain my own religion.

This is completely inconsistent. Is Islam the only true religion or is it just ideological expression of specific class interests. By choosing one, you must reject the other.

Art Vandelay

20th August 2013, 00:53

That's nonsense. Marxism has nothing to do with religion.

Actually Marx's body of thought did deal with religion. He analyzed it, understanding it in terms of ideology, and developed his understanding of religion into his overall critique of class society. Your statement is just demonstrably false.

Klaatu

20th August 2013, 01:19

Actually Marx's body of thought did deal with religion. He analyzed it, understanding it in terms of ideology, and developed his understanding of religion into his overall critique of class society. Your statement is just demonstrably false.

Marx did in fact critique religion ("the opiate of the masses") but then this is his personal opinion. I too critique religion. I think it is silly and a pitiful waste of time. That is my opinion. I agree with him on this.

But the major premise of Marxism is a workers' society. But I don't know that he actually intended to exclude the faithful from becoming a part of the workers' society. I think the workers' society is open to all.

Not all people will agree 100% on every fine point of life. For example, perhaps Marx disliked golf. Then must we, as Marxists, dislike golf as well?

Klaatu

20th August 2013, 01:29

Is Islam the only true religion or is it just ideological expression of specific class interests. By choosing one, you must reject the other.

I take a step back and observe religion (as opposed to practicing it)

I think people that follow this religion or that religion are missing the big picture... We are all of the human race, and we are all equals. There are no high priests, no 'upper class' people, nor celebrities, in my point of view.

I disdain religion, yet I have a belief in nature, and it's life forces. And nature has given us life, and does not discriminate. Humans are humans, no matter what ones' skin color, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc

IMHO, I would say that this is a Marxist point of view.

Art Vandelay

20th August 2013, 01:32

Marx did in fact critique religion ("the opiate of the masses") but then this is his personal opinion. I too critique religion. I think it is silly and a pitiful waste of time. That is my opinion. I agree with him on this.

But the major premise of Marxism is a workers' society. But I don't know that he actually intended to exclude the faithful from becoming a part of the workers' society. I think the workers' society is open to all.

Not all people will agree 100% on every fine point of life. For example, perhaps Marx disliked golf. Then must we, as Marxists, dislike golf as well?

I think you misunderstand the point comrade. Marx didn't intend to 'exclude the faithful from becoming a part of a workers society,' he was a materialist. He knew that religion wasn't something which could simply be banished, but that the material conditions which necessitated its existence would disappear and thus religion with it. As Leo already mentioned in this thread, the faithful are more then capable of being internationalists and socialists (I'm sure many will be on the proper side of the barricades when the time comes), however Marxism is something distinct (it carries with it the rejection of religion, premised on a materialist understanding of its origins and purposes). A Marxist can certainly not also be a person of faith, and if we consider those who claim to be both as such, then we change the term Marxism from representing something precise (a paradigm), to being meaningless.

Dagoth Ur

20th August 2013, 01:37

This is completely inconsistent. Is Islam the only true religion or is it just ideological expression of specific class interests. By choosing one, you must reject the other.
You have the mindset of a fundamentalist. It's either the one true faith or its nothing? That is entirely puerile.

Also religion doesn't have class interest, its clergies do. Religions are interpreted texts. So who does the interpreting, and when/where they were, is pretty important.

Astarte

20th August 2013, 01:44

I think you misunderstand the point comrade. Marx didn't intend to 'exclude the faithful from becoming a part of a workers society,' he was a materialist. He knew that religion wasn't something which could simply be banished, but that the material conditions which necessitated its existence would disappear and thus religion with it. As Leo already mentioned in this thread, the faithful are more then capable of being internationalists and socialists (I'm sure many will be on the proper side of the barricades when the time comes), however Marxism is something distinct (it carries with it the rejection of religion, premised on a materialist understanding of its origins and purposes). A Marxist can certainly not also be a person of faith, and if we consider those who claim to be both as such, then we change the term Marxism from representing something precise (a paradigm), to being meaningless.

No, but its really not; you call us the "faithful" but orthodox Marxism puts overwhelming faith in the notion that there is 100% without a down and unequivocally nothing but the material reality man can perceive with his five sense and the tools those sense create; this is also a "faith based system". The arrogance and patronizing tone ortho-Marxists take on when they call themselves "scientific" based on outmoded 19th century materialism really is laughable.

Art Vandelay

20th August 2013, 01:56

No, but its really not; you call us the "faithful" but orthodox Marxism puts overwhelming faith in the notion that there is 100% without a down and unequivocally nothing but the material reality man can perceive with his five sense and the tools those sense create; this is also a "faith based system". The arrogance and patronizing tone ortho-Marxists take on when they call themselves "scientific" based on outmoded 19th century materialism really is laughable.

You quite clearly have no proper understanding of Marxism. It puts faith in nothing, and how one can even come to this conclusion is beyond me. The entire premise is that there is no reason to believe that anything exists outside of the material world, if you follow a proper scientific methodology that is. There is literally no evidence, except of course for a handful of ancient texts, to support otherwise. Now if you'd like to say that if new scientific evidence arose, pushing materialism into the dustbin of history, would most 'Marxists' cling to their materialist beliefs like a religion? I think that there is actually a good chance alot would, however that would simply reveal to them have never been Marxists in the first place. I haven't taken a patronizing tone towards anyone here so I'm not even sure where that particular comment is stemming from. Also I'm unsure why you bolded the part of my post stating that Marxism is something distinct (which it is, its a specific paradigm) and then simply went on to say that 'no it isn't,' without providing any argumentation, to then run off on a tangent about faith.

Klaatu

20th August 2013, 01:59

I think a poll should be run on this Marxism/religion dichotomy.

Thirsty Crow

20th August 2013, 02:10

You quite clearly have no proper understanding of Marxism. It puts faith in nothing, and how one can even come to this conclusion is beyond me.
Easy.
When confronted with the position that there is no basis for faith in substantiation and evidence, referring to the existing world (and when confronted with Marxism's analysis of religion), then you merely flip things around and claim that there is no way you can be sure that fantasy beings do not exist (and influence human action and history, of course, in certain ways), and that your insistence on evidence is merely another variant of the same old shit - faith, and you can optionally reinvent a term like Orthodox Marxism, or better yet, "outmoded 19th century materialism" (as opposed to a new age spiritualist-materialism?) as a swear word. Basically, it's the thought operation of a creationist

Now if you'd like to say that if new scientific evidence arose, pushing materialism into the dustbin of history, would most 'Marxists' cling to their materialist beliefs like a religion?
That's like saying "what if scientific evidence pushes scientific evidence based paradigms of study into the dustbin of history?".

G4b3n

20th August 2013, 02:12

Art Vandelay

20th August 2013, 02:20

Easy. When confronted with the position that there is no basis for faith in substantiation and evidence, referring to the existing world (and when confronted with Marxism's analysis of religion), then you merely flip things around and claim that there is no way you can be sure that fantasy beings do not exist (and influence human action and history, of course, in certain ways), and that your insistence on evidence is merely another variant of the same old shit - faith, and you can optionally reinvent a term like Orthodox Marxism, or better yet, "outmoded 19th century materialism" (as opposed to a new age spiritualist-materialism?) as a swear word. Basically, it's the thought operation of a creationist

I'm sorry but can you clarify what exactly it is you are stating here? Are you really telling me that my insistence on my opinions being back up by scientific evidence, is merely another variant of faith? I hope for you're sake I've misunderstood you.

Edit: Nevermind I think I've understood what you are saying here. You weren't ascribing that theory to me, correct? But rather to those who claim Marxism itself is a form of faith?

That's like saying "what if scientific evidence pushes scientific evidence based paradigms of study into the dustbin of history?".

My point was that as Marxists we must be willing to revise our convictions when they no longer prove to be backed up by the existing evidence.

Leo

20th August 2013, 02:28

I strongly feel that the reason people here are claiming that one can be religious and a marxist at the same time is that they don't really have an idea what marxism, or religion for that matter are.

For instance the user who said this:

That's nonsense. Marxism has nothing to do with religion.

defines marxism as follows:

But the major premise of Marxism is a workers' society. But I don't know that he actually intended to exclude the faithful from becoming a part of the workers' society. I think the workers' society is open to all.

However, the major premise of marxism isn't a workers' society. Marxism is the revolutionary historical materialist method.

Marx didn't have a concept such as a workers' society: he instead defined a transition period, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the classless society, communism. Indeed, the dictatorship of the proletariat means the dictatorship of all workers, including religious workers. And a religious worker may indeed be for such a world as it is in his or her best interests as a worker. What will happen in a classless society is open for debate, although I do think religion will actually dissapear eventually. However all these are theoretical conclusions drawn from the method, they are not the method itself.

The same user goes on to say:

Marx did in fact critique religion ("the opiate of the masses") but then this is his personal opinion. I too critique religion. I think it is silly and a pitiful waste of time. That is my opinion. I agree with him on this.

Yet what Marx thought about religion, or how he analyzed or criticized it is not the point, nor is calling it silly and a pitiful waste of time. Religion is a way of understanding and explaining the world which is by definition mystical. Early examples, like paganism mentioned in this thread, explained natural phenomenon with the will of the gods. More common relations comment on social relations, morality, laws and economics with the claim that they are indeed wods of god, who created the world and who is ultimately good and so on and so forth. This is religion.

And a religious person can't be a marxist, because a religious person can't be a historical materialist. Why? Because historical materialism is a fundamentally different way of understanding and explaining the world. They aren't compatible. To someone who takes their religion seriously, historical materialism goes against every aspect of their thinking and is a sin.

The fact that a religious person, by definition, isn't and can't be a marxist so long as he or she ceases to be religious also means that a religious person can't be a member of an organization which considers itself marxist. It doesn't mean that marxists should discriminate against religious workers or actively campaign to convert them to atheism though. A marxist organization is a minority organization of the most conscious communist proletarians and the working class as a whole do not need to become all marxists to conduct a succesful revolution. However a religious person can very well be an excellent militant worker or even a communist sympathizer.

And what do marxists say to religious workers? We tell them that their interests are the same with the interests of workers from other religions and with those of atheist workers, like us.

Thirsty Crow

20th August 2013, 02:30

I'm sorry but can you clarify what exactly it is you are stating here? Are you really telling me that my insistence on my opinions being back up by scientific evidence, is merely another variant of faith? I hope for you're sake I've misunderstood you. Sarcasm, doesn't travel well over the internet.

What I'm trying to get across here is that spiritualists of any flavor tend to reduce science to another faith system due to their claims actually being supported by no evidence whatsoever, but by tradition, specifically interpreted personal experience, or something else. That's the flip and logical blunder I'm referring to, the idea that not being able to disprove the existence of such entities reduces science to faith, which is a highly selective and frankly disingenuous (mis)use of evidence based reasoning (since these concepts are necessarily not amenable to verification; before being able to "verify" her faith, the disciple must already assume it in order to experience the world in this way).

My point was that as Marxists we must be willing to revise our convictions when they no longer prove to be backed up by the existing evidence.Of course. But to stretch this reasonable position to the very foundation of science - materialism - would produce that absurd chimera of "scientific evidence disproving scientific evidence based paradigms of research".

Klaatu

20th August 2013, 02:59

Thirsty Crow

20th August 2013, 03:04

Perhaps the question to be asked is this: can Marxism and religion co-exist?

As Leo points out, believers can be a part of The Workers' Paradise, but are not really Marxists, in the truest sense. But wouldn't this lead right back into the conundrum of a class society?
Are you really suggesting that religious beliefs, and lack of it, might form the basis of class division? Wow.

Okay, can you explain just how such a development might occur?

Oh yeah, and to answer the original question. The issue is how the opposition between religiosity and historical materialism gets resolved in one's head, and whether one is consistent at both (for instance, some Catholics actually hold beliefs that can be classified as deist). So, I'd say that it's not possible to adhere to Marxism consistently while holding religious beliefs, and vice versa.

Though, it seems to me that deism might be considered an exception due to 1) focus on prime causes of the universe and 2) the lack of any kind of providence in human actions.

Rafiq

20th August 2013, 03:18

Pagans or any other religious cannot be marxists because the very mechanisms which define and explain the material context of say, paganism are intrinsic to Marxism. That being said, it's important to also remember that you can hardly even be religious and a bourgeois rationalist, let alone a "pagan". Why some people think that it's compatible with Marxism is beyond me. I don't even see what's so appealing about marxism to these spiritualists, Marxism is completely amoral, it is the iron wall of atheism from which nothing can cripple. There is absolutely no foundations within Marxism for spiritualism to adhere to, Marxism itself was an attack on utopian socialists, what distinguishes Marxists from utopians is hardly something that they should consider attractive.

Dagoth Ur

20th August 2013, 03:35

A religious person can be a Marxist of sorts, but they can not adhere to dialectical materialism. He or she could be a dialectician, but not in a materialist sense.

Materialism basically says to us that "matter is the objective reality given to us through sensation". All religion contradicts this notion.
Except they don't. Islam directly states that all things are Allah. Hence materialism is the only way to understand a material universe. I use diamat to refine my understanding of Allah Himself. Only literalism contradicts diamat (but literalism is for small minded fools anyways).

@Leo: nice just attack our understandings rather than accept that perhaps we put in the effort to figure out something you don't care about.

Klaatu

20th August 2013, 03:35

Are you really suggesting that religious beliefs, and lack of it, might form the basis of class division? Wow.

Okay, can you explain just how such a development might occur?

I don't know. It's just a thought.

When two seemingly opposing points of view (as others here have suggested) exist, there may be the seed of 'class' forming... Not class in a wealth sense, rather, class in another sense, such as a perceived superiority of one group over the other (whichever one or the 'other' is)

Zostrianos

20th August 2013, 03:44

As I mentioned a million times before, religion is a personal thing, and the value of spirituality to countless people has already been proven by science (with studies on meditation, etc.); the existence or non-existence of an actual supernatural dimension outside the human mind is completely irrelevant. Some people find fulfillment in art, others in literature, others in sports, and yet others in religion and spirituality. I'm talking about spirituality, not the oppressive, exoteric, fanatical institutions who have oppressed (and continue to oppress) millions of people. My belief in Marxism\Socialism as the best way to run a society does not conflict with my own Hermetic beliefs which provide meaning to my life. And why should it? We might as well say that artists cannot be socialists, because art is a creative endeavour entirely divorced from materialism.

Thirsty Crow

20th August 2013, 03:46

I don't know. It's just a thought.

When two seemingly opposing points of view (as others here have suggested) exist, there may be the seed of 'class' forming... Not class in a wealth sense, rather, class in another sense, such as a perceived superiority of one group over the other (whichever one or the 'other' is)

Well, if you use the term "class" and "class division" in this sense, it is clear that it doesn't have anything to do with the Marxist notion of class (or with bourgeois sociology, for that matter). I think that this only confuses the matter. What you're referring to here is potential discrimination. And I'd oppose that.

We might as well say that artists cannot be socialists, because art is a creative endeavour entirely divorced materialism.The thing is that artists doing their thing does not imply a definite, mystical view of history and society (the connection between the transcendent and this world). The point is how do spiritualisms conceptualize this relationship, and whether they do so in fact.

Remus Bleys

20th August 2013, 03:50

One can certainly adhere to a mix of historical materialism and divine intervention.
Just because a god interacts sometimes, doesn't mean that god interacts all the time. And the other times need some explaining to do.
A bit historical materialism, but very unorthodox bastardized version.

Being religious doesn't mean abandoning class analysis.

Sea

20th August 2013, 03:52

Except they don't. Islam directly states that all things are Allah. Hence materialism is the only way to understand a material universe. I use diamat to refine my understanding of Allah Himself. Only literalism contradicts diamat (but literalism is for small minded fools anyways).

@Leo: nice just attack our understandings rather than accept that perhaps we put in the effort to figure out something you don't care about.Do you have any evidence that all things are Allah? And yes that's a serious question.

Remus Bleys

20th August 2013, 03:57

Do you have any evidence that all things are Allah? And yes that's a serious question.
Playing devil's advocate here.
Do you have any evidence that all things are matter? And yes that's a serious question.

Sea

20th August 2013, 04:03

Playing devil's advocate here.
Do you have any evidence that all things are matter? And yes that's a serious question.I never claimed all things are matter. Gravity isn't matter according to the Merriam-Webster definition of matter.

But you assume it anyway! What else do you mean by all things, if not material things?

Rural Comrade

20th August 2013, 04:05

I would like to state that not all religions believe that deities control everything.

Remus Bleys

20th August 2013, 04:06

I never claimed all things are matter. Gravity isn't matter according to the Merriam-Webster definition of matter.

But you assume it anyway! What else do you mean by all things, if not material things?
In the materialist sense.
Do you have proof that all that there is to the world is boiled down to matter, energy, and force?
How do you know it isn't, say, Allah, in disguise?
What if those things are just Allah's thoughts?

Thirsty Crow

20th August 2013, 04:07

Playing devil's advocate here.
Do you have any evidence that all things are matter? And yes that's a serious question.
Browse through an encyclopedia. I doubt one would contain references to a, evidentially based, discovered spiritual things or spiritual aspects to things.

One can certainly adhere to a mix of historical materialism and divine intervention.
Just because a god interacts sometimes, doesn't mean that god interacts all the time. And the other times need some explaining to do.
A bit historical materialism, but very unorthodox bastardized version.Bastardized beyond recognition and more importantly, beyond any use in class struggle (other than those manifestly reactionary; I suppose that the leadership of the working class would have to consist of enlightened believers in direct contact with god, anticipating divine intervention). Also, if divine intervention isn't amenable to explanation (as you clearly imply since you reserve the need for explanation only for "other times"), how can anyone be sure that these other times are not a product of the very same divine intervention? Or some other other times?

How do you know it isn't, say, Allah, in disguise?Because that is not a verifiable proposition, it is a metaphysical one.

What if those things are just Allah's thoughts?
Couldn't care less.

Sea

20th August 2013, 04:10

In the materialist sense.
Do you have proof that all that there is to the world is boiled down to matter, energy, and force?If matter equates to Allah, there wouldn't have to be anything beyond matter for all material things to be Allah.

How do you know it isn't, say, Allah, in disguise?
What if those things are just Allah's thoughts?That's what I was hoping to find out from Dagoth Ur.

Remus Bleys

20th August 2013, 04:13

Bastardized beyond recognition and more importantly, beyond any use in class struggle I see more to life than just the class struggle.
Thats gonna cause make some people angry, but so what? Do I, and quite frankly a very large amount of the workers, have to really care what members of what is ultimately an irrelevant website have to say?

(other than those manifestly reactionary; I suppose that the leadership of the working class would have to consist of enlightened believers in direct contact with god, anticipating divine intervention).:confused:
Where did I come close to implying this?

Also, if divine intervention isn't amenable to explanation (as you clearly imply since you reserve the need for explanation only for "other times"), how can anyone be sure that these other times are not a product of the very same divine intervention? Or some other other times? You can't be sure. You can't be sure about anything though.
The "other times" was really a misnomer. God wouldn't intervene on a regular basis, it'd be a rare occurence. Other than that, let shit happen. And you need a way of explaining how the world works for the vast majority of the time.

Dagoth Ur

20th August 2013, 04:14

I have no evidence and seeking such would defile my faith. In fact you could say the less evidence I have the stronger my faith is.

Personally I adhere to a vision of Allah as a creator who sparked existence with laws like diamat and then let it be. His Infinite Self means he knows every thing we'll ever do but that's not fate. Even revelation itself was a product of man. Islam is for us, Allah could never be constrained by such small ideas.

Remus Bleys

20th August 2013, 04:15

Because that is not a verifiable proposition, it is a metaphysical one. And yet, saying all their is is just that the Universe is real isn't a metaphysical proposition?
Okay. Prove to me you exist independently of me.
EDIT: I just reread that sentence. Shoulda said "And yet, saying that the Universe is real and independent of mind (and that mind is dependent of the Universe) is not a metaphysical proposition?"

Fakeblock

20th August 2013, 04:16

My belief in Marxism\Socialism as the best way to run a society does not conflict with my own Hermetic beliefs which provide meaning to my life. And why should it? We might as well say that artists cannot be socialists, because art is a creative endeavour entirely divorced materialism.

There is a difference between Marxism and socialism. Religion is quite compatible with socialism, but incompatible with Marxism.

You have the mindset of a fundamentalist. It's either the one true faith or its nothing? That is entirely puerile.

Some beliefs don't mix well. It isn't puerile or fundamentalist to say that one can't, at the same time, be a fascist and a communist, a bacon-lover and a vegan or a serf and an aristocrat. This isn't any different One can either accept or reject a materialist view of ideology. If you accept it, you reject the universality and objectivity of your religion, thereby virtually abandoning it. If you reject it, you aren't a Marxist in any meaningful sense.

Also religion doesn't have class interest, its clergies do. Religions are interpreted texts. So who does the interpreting, and when/where they were, is pretty important.

But there must be a correct, universal interpretation or the religion is meaningless. Of course, religious writings are mostly either vague enough to serve any purpose or silly enough to be ignored, much to the benefit of various ruling classes.

Astarte

20th August 2013, 04:21

You quite clearly have no proper understanding of Marxism.

Haha, OK, right, I have been a Marxist of one variety or another for 17 years now, have you even been alive that long? My understanding of Marxism has over the years expanded far outside of the 19th century orthodoxy they teach in Trotskyite bootcamp.

It puts faith in nothing, and how one can even come to this conclusion is beyond me.
So, Marxism has faith in nothing you are telling me? That is non-sense - Marxism has no faith in the working class as the motor force of the social revolution? Marxism has no faith in the soundness of historical materialism as an approach to the understanding of the unfoldment of history and society? It sounds like to me that you are rather confusing Marxism with nihilism.

The entire premise is that there is no reason to believe that anything exists outside of the material world, if you follow a proper scientific methodology that is.
More like if you follow a "scientific methodology" that amounts to a Procrustean Bed of epistemology. Spiritual experiences are discounted by hardline materialists simply because they have themselves never had any. Its a juvenile and childish approach to "science" at best.

There is literally no evidence, except of course for a handful of ancient texts, to support otherwise.
Whether you like it or not, the majority of people on the planet subscribe to one form or another of spiritual belief. Also the number that subscribe to spiritual beliefs that are anti-religious or non-hierarchical and divorced from state structures is and has been on the rise since approximately the time of the French revolution. The first hand spiritual experiences of hundreds of millions of people world wide far out weigh both atheism's and organized religion's claim to absolute truth on the theological or anti-theological nature of reality.

Also I'm unsure why you bolded the part of my post stating that Marxism is something distinct (which it is, its a specific paradigm) and then simply went on to say that 'no it isn't,' without providing any argumentation, to then run off on a tangent about faith. Because it isn't anything distinct when it comes to matters of claiming a monopoly on what is the truth of the nature of reality - the dogmas attached to hardline materialistic atheism are just as, if not more rigid than the worst of the brands organized religion has to offer.

Thirsty Crow

20th August 2013, 04:35

I see more to life than just the class struggle.
Thats gonna cause make some people angry, but so what? Do I, and quite frankly a very large amount of the workers, have to really care what members of what is ultimately an irrelevant website have to say?I do as well see more to life than class struggle, but that is irrelevant here since we are talking about historical materialism, and a potential chimera made out of it. So, communist practice and academic study being two spheres directly related to it, I maintain that is would be of no use in either. I don't see how referring to other aspects of one's life or the relevancy of this site affect this argument.

:confused:
Where did I come close to implying this?You did not imply that; yet, the implications can be drawn from the argument since, as I said, I'm primarily interested in historical materialism in practice, that is, in communist political and analytic practice (since, at least for me, this whole deal isn't a hobby I enjoy; it's something that finds its expression in action, in one way or another). If political a group were formed around such "variants" of historical materialism, it would be reasonable to assume that the problem I mentioned could arise, and others.

You can't be sure. You can't be sure about anything though.
Sure you can. You can be sure, given the availability of data, of let's say certain events in the past if other do not suggest that some sort of falsification might have happened. Hyperbolic doubt isn't really useful in my opinion.

But more importantly, here you show how your initial position would actually collapse the other part, class analysis, of the proposed combination, since you admit that there is no reason (it's even impossible to do so) to believe that only one set of events and occurrences were divinely inspired. Why not all of history, etc.

The "other times" was really a misnomer. God wouldn't intervene on a regular basis, it'd be a rare occurence. Other than that, let shit happen. And you need a way of explaining how the world work for the vast majority of the time.How do you know god would not intervene on a regular basis? After all, right above you openly said that you can't be sure.

And yet, saying all their is is just that the Universe is real isn't a metaphysical proposition?
Sorry, I can't make out what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase that? If you mean that saying the universe is real isn't a metaphysical proposition, and if you defined "real" as "not imagined by a human being; material", then yes, I think that would not be a metaphysical statement.

Okay. Prove to me you exist independently of me.How is this relevant?

The first hand spiritual experiences of hundreds of millions of people world wide far out weigh both atheism's and organized religion's claim to absolute truth on the theological or anti-theological nature of reality.

So, if I got it straight, personal experience is enough to pronounce judgement on "theological" nature of reality? Or in other we words, things are what we think (or "experience", profoundly) they are?

And you've been a Marxist for how long, 17 years?

Dagoth Ur

20th August 2013, 04:41

Some beliefs don't mix well. It isn't puerile or fundamentalist to say that one can't, at the same time, be a fascist and a communist, a bacon-lover and a vegan or a serf and an aristocrat. This isn't any different
I know bacon-loving vegans (even if they won't touch it nowadays). That's completely different than religion however. Fascism is a reaction to communism so you could never be both, and serf and aristocrats are antagonistic classes. Religion is not an antagonist class or a reaction to anything. It arose in the first place as an organized system to handle the new rigors of farming, and continued to maintain harmony in ancient society. Over time religion has come to mean personal fulfillment (bourgeoisie influence writ large) as social harmony has been figured out in a legalistic format. Under socialism the base would revolutionize the superstructure and religion would take on a format heretofore unimaginable. But that the power of communism.

One can either accept or reject a materialist view of ideology. If you accept it, you reject the universality and objectivity of your religion, thereby virtually abandoning it. If you reject it, you aren't a Marxist in any meaningful sense.
I'm a materialist and theist. There is not contradiction between these two in my cosmology as basically I believe in Marxism with Allah thrown in for spice.

But there must be a correct, universal interpretation or the religion is meaningless. Of course, religious writings are mostly either vague enough to serve any purpose or silly enough to be ignored, much to the benefit of various ruling classes.[/QUOTE]

Astarte

20th August 2013, 04:50

So, if I got it straight, personal experience is enough to pronounce judgement on "theological" nature of reality? Or in other we words, things are what we think (or "experience", profoundly) they are?

And you've been a Marxist for how long, 17 years?

First of all, do me a favor; when you talk to me spare me condescending quips like "if I got it straight" and get straight to the point. Yeah, you do have it straight, personal experience is apparently enough to pronounce judgement on the nature of reality.

Do you honestly deny militant atheists do not do the same thing? Militant atheists pronounce judgement on the ultimate nature of reality based on the experience their five sense and the tools their five senses create for them and come to the conclusion, through their own ideologically materialist collective solipsism that reality is 100% only what is immediately apparent to them and anything outside of what they, in their own insulated ideological community believe to exist simply cannot. People who have had spiritual experiences do the same thing (pronounce judgement on the nature of reality based on their own personal experience) but also incorporate experiences into their world view that are not conveyable by way of the mechanisms of the five human senses or can be communicated or transmitted by way of these.

Remus Bleys

20th August 2013, 04:54

Sorry, I can't make out what you're trying to say here. Care to rephrase that? If you mean that saying the universe is real isn't a metaphysical proposition, and if you defined "real" as "not imagined by a human being; material", then yes, I think that would not be a metaphysical statement.
I did rephrase that. Sorry about that.

How is this relevant?
If the world, for sure (without getting into metaphysics or anything like that, as you are 100% certain about this), is composed of things independent from me, then you should be prove that you exist independently from me.

Rafiq

20th August 2013, 18:53

If matter equates to Allah, there wouldn't have to be anything beyond matter for all material things to be Allah.

That's what I was hoping to find out from Dagoth Ur.

I mean, really, what we do know is that matter is not a form of consciousness and all matter does not unify into a single, mega conscious being so... Yeah.

And that even excludes the psychological dimensions which cry out under the heavy pressure of science to label "everything is allah in disguise" or whatever. This is what you'd call projecting conscious characteristics exclusive only to humans onto things devoid of such. It's a pretty primal, and incredibly weak form of thought.

stefanmg

20th August 2013, 19:09

A religious person can't be a marxist, regardless of the religion.

I'd rather say that they cannot be philosophical Marxists. One can be a communist/socialist/anarchist politically, without being a follower of dialectical materialism. One really interesting example that comes to mind is Nikolai Berdyaev. From a socio-political point of view, he was a Marxist (although he was exiled in 1922 for criticizing Bolshevik totalitarianism and subsequently became an anarchist), whereas from a philosophical point of view, he was a Christian existentialist all his life (he was also a renegade within the Russian Orthodox Church and the Revolution essentially saved him from exile to Siberia).

I haven't read any of his works on the Russian Revolution yet, but there is an interesting article (available online) which explains his political acceptance and philosophical rejection of Marxism titled "Nicolas Berdyaev's Critique of Marxism".

Art Vandelay

20th August 2013, 19:26

Haha, OK, right, I have been a Marxist of one variety or another for 17 years now, have you even been alive that long? My understanding of Marxism has over the years expanded far outside of the 19th century orthodoxy they teach in Trotskyite bootcamp.

My age is irrelevant, but for the record yes I have been alive for that long.

So, Marxism has faith in nothing you are telling me? That is non-sense - Marxism has no faith in the working class as the motor force of the social revolution? Marxism has no faith in the soundness of historical materialism as an approach to the understanding of the unfoldment of history and society? It sounds like to me that you are rather confusing Marxism with nihilism.

It sounds to me like you have no idea what the word faith is. The definition of faith is conviction in something which lacks proof. Marxists don't have 'faith' in the working class, they use the Marxist method to deduce that the history of all existing histories, is the history of class struggle, and that the historical task of surpassing capital rests on the shoulders of the world proletariat. Marxism doesn't have 'faith' in historical materialism, they merely recognize communism to be the ideological expression of the class interests of the proletariat. Your argument is slander, you can't get around the fact that your arguments are supported by nothing other then faith, so you merely attach 'faith' to your opponents argument, regardless of whether or not your claim is accurate. Well I'm sorry but your wrong and are going to get called out on it.

More like if you follow a "scientific methodology" that amounts to a Procrustean Bed of epistemology. Spiritual experiences are discounted by hardline materialists simply because they have themselves never had any. Its a juvenile and childish approach to "science" at best.

No its because personal anecdotes (for a number of reasons) have limitations when producing a proper scientific analysis. For personal anecdotes to be of any use, there needs to be a collection of many, from people of many different backgrounds, variables need to be eliminated, a methodology set for analyzing and proving their authenticity established, etc.

Whether you like it or not, the majority of people on the planet subscribe to one form or another of spiritual belief.

So what? What a fucking bankrupt argument. Your appealing to democracy? The majority of the people on this planet think that capitalism is perfectly sustainable. Are we going to start determining everything in life based off the majority? If majority ruled the only literature in society would be gossip magazines and the only pants made would be skinny jeans.

Also the number that subscribe to spiritual beliefs that are anti-religious or non-hierarchical and divorced from state structures is and has been on the rise since approximately the time of the French revolution. The first hand spiritual experiences of hundreds of millions of people world wide far out weigh both atheism's and organized religion's claim to absolute truth on the theological or anti-theological nature of reality.

No one claims absolute truth, minus the religious community. The atheist proposition is not that God doesn't exist, but that there is no reason to think that he does; atheism is simply a rejection of the metaphysical claims made by theism.

Thirsty Crow

20th August 2013, 19:42

First of all, do me a favor; when you talk to me spare me condescending quips like "if I got it straight" and get straight to the point. Yeah, you do have it straight, personal experience is apparently enough to pronounce judgement on the nature of reality.

Well excuse me, but when confronted with a position that expressly calls itself Marxist, and then it proceeds to spout such idealist garbage (amounting to no more than claiming that ideas condition reality since "experience" here cannot be taken to be equivalent to to the universal character of hypothesis - observation - verification in science, relying on shared human characteristics; unless you'd argue that spiritual people are somehow endowed with extra evolutionary traits), no wonder I'd stop and ask whether I got it straight. Benefit of doubt.

And just to be clear, I'm not assessing the truth value of your beliefs. They are not verifiable after all. Neither do I proceed from an anti-theist position. I merely claim that it is a travesty to claim Marxism as one's own point of departure and then proceed to conclude that it is the beliefs and ideas of a certain group of people that outweigh both other ideas and existing evidence and knowledge about the world. But yeah, I don't know why I'm surprised every time that idealism is marketed as Marxism.

No one claims absolute truth, minus the religious community. The atheist proposition is not that God doesn't exist, but that there is no reason to think that he does; atheism is simply a rejection of the metaphysical claims made by theism.
Not even that. Atheism amounts to a rejection of belief in deities, and doesn't produce any empirical statements of its own. There is no proposition here whatsoever in fact, unless we take the meta-proposition regarding the validity of evidence based approach to knowledge of the world, as opposed to the uselessness of the faith based approach, as a proposition.

Remus Bleys

20th August 2013, 19:50

Thirsty Crow

20th August 2013, 19:57

Materialism supposes that the world exists independently of our abstractions.
Prove the world exists independently of your abstractions.
If you have no proof, by your logic, you're silly, and should stop being a materialist.
What are "abstractions"?

If you mean, thoughts, then sure I can "prove" that. Right now, I'm abstracting you out of existence. You'll no longer appear here at revleft and thus I'll prove the futility of materialism. When I think about it, I'll do this abstracting for quite some time lest I think that somehow I didn't finish the process well enough.

How about I do a lot of abstracting on my legs and see if they're gone in what, a week, two weeks, a month? Or my TV, laptop, whatever?

Fakeblock

20th August 2013, 20:12

Religion is not an antagonist class or a reaction to anything. It arose in the first place as an organized system to handle the new rigors of farming, and continued to maintain harmony in ancient society.Over time religion has come to mean personal fulfillment (bourgeoisie influence writ large) as social harmony has been figured out in a legalistic format.

What do you mean by "social harmony"?

Under socialism the base would revolutionize the superstructure and religion would take on a format heretofore unimaginable. But that the power of communism.

t seems like you're agreeing that a religion takes on different forms dependent on which class it serves. But this notion undermines the universality and objectivity of religion, rendering it meaningless. Subjective philosophies (especially if based on faith alone) can't be reconciled with scientific methods.

I'm a materialist and theist. There is not contradiction between these two in my cosmology as basically I believe in Marxism with Allah thrown in for spice.

There is a difference between Marxism and communism. People don't automatically become Marxists as soon as they say "capitalism is bad, abolish it!" Marxism is politically unbiased and scientific. For one to be a Marxist, one must have a dialectical and materialist understanding of history and its laws. Religion can't be reconciled with such an understanding. Believing that eternally existing deities with unlimited powers over our world and that everything is a mere product of their will is idealist as can be. Just as homeopaths shouldn't claim to be doctors and Nazbols shouldn't claim to be socialists, idealists shouldn't claim to be Marxists. It can only lead to confusion. Sure, the religious may use Marx's method on occassions, perhaps more often than not, but their materialism is inconsistent nevertheless.

Remus Bleys

20th August 2013, 20:56

What are "abstractions"?

If you mean, thoughts, then sure I can "prove" that. Right now, I'm abstracting you out of existence. You'll no longer appear here at revleft and thus I'll prove the futility of materialism. When I think about it, I'll do this abstracting for quite some time lest I think that somehow I didn't finish the process well enough.

How about I do a lot of abstracting on my legs and see if they're gone in what, a week, two weeks, a month? Or my TV, laptop, whatever?
Whoosh!
If the world is independent, prove it.
Prove there were people before me. Prove this isn't just an elaborate dream I'm having.
I mean I believe that people existed before me, but I don't have certain proof. I have what people told me, but that *could* be falsification. An elaborate ploy.
Or I am dreaming.

Dagoth Ur

20th August 2013, 21:28

What do you mean by "social harmony"?
In that it kept society working towards a common goal. Like building pyramids or any other impressive ancient feat. By feudalism it was providing the justification for aristocracy and monarchy (an important advance for humanity).

t seems like you're agreeing that a religion takes on different forms dependent on which class it serves. But this notion undermines the universality and objectivity of religion, rendering it meaningless. Subjective philosophies (especially if based on faith alone) can't be reconciled with scientific methods.
It's not meaningless because I find meaning in it. Sure my meaning is personal and individual but who gives a shit if my faith has meaning? Do you really care? We're materialists dude. A faith cannot be judged by its universality but by its material effects. And dude why wouldn't religion change with the times? Do you think some infinite being capable of creating and knowing the whole universe would give us a static religion? A static religion for a dynamic species? Is God like retarded to you?

There is a difference between Marxism and communism. People don't automatically become Marxists as soon as they say "capitalism is bad, abolish it!" Marxism is politically unbiased and scientific. For one to be a Marxist, one must have a dialectical and materialist understanding of history and its laws. Religion can't be reconciled with such an understanding.
Okay but I did it. It's not so hard. Prove to me how I'm not a diamat using Marxist. Also hard lols at claiming Marxism is politically unbiased.

Believing that eternally existing deities with unlimited powers over our world and that everything is a mere product of their will is idealist as can be. Just as homeopaths shouldn't claim to be doctors and Nazbols shouldn't claim to be socialists, idealists shouldn't claim to be Marxists. It can only lead to confusion. Sure, the religious may use Marx's method on occassions, perhaps more often than not, but their materialism is inconsistent nevertheless.
I'm not an idealist and I challenge you to expose me engaging in idealism in any sense. I've got 13k posts over on S-E that you can look through too. Shouldn't be hard since I must be an idealist. Otherwise I, by my existence, defeat your logic.

Astarte

20th August 2013, 22:02

The atheist proposition is not that God doesn't exist, but that there is no reason to think that he does; atheism is simply a rejection of the metaphysical claims made by theism.

So you aren't a militant atheist after all. Good. Why didn't you just say this in the first place? Can you tell me again why there is an irreconcilable gulf between the application of historical materialism to the development of society and history and holding personal spiritual beliefs?

ckaihatsu

20th August 2013, 23:36

So, Marxism being of the realm of 'politics', that leaves religion more in the area of one's *worldview* about the natural universe, cosmology, animals, people, etc.

Marxism isn't in the realm of politics though, it is in the realm of all social relations.

According to the religious, the world can be created and manipulated by timeless beings, which is contradictory to any materialist worldview. No acts or ideas exist independently of social relations.

Yeah, sure, on a *technicality* 'timeless beings' exist according to a believer's worldview -- and I swear I'd be the last one to defend religion or religious thought, but, increasingly, *present-day* mythologies are thrown into the same drawer as classical mythologies and pantheism -- so, with *all* deities now widely regarded as a kind of cultural shorthand, or at most something for the kids for a few years, we now give a wink to each other with every outdated religious-bullshit-mindfuck-social-control reference.

ckaihatsu

20th August 2013, 23:42

No, but its really not; you call us the "faithful" but orthodox Marxism puts overwhelming faith in the notion that there is 100% without a down and unequivocally nothing but the material reality man can perceive with his five sense and the tools those sense create; this is also a "faith based system". The arrogance and patronizing tone ortho-Marxists take on when they call themselves "scientific" based on outmoded 19th century materialism really is laughable.

[T]he material reality man can perceive with his five sense and the tools those sense create; this is also a "faith based system".

There's far more evidence for the five-senses thing -- all of empiricism. That's hardly "faith-based".

Also, from a past thread:

We could call Marxism a 'societal paradigm', and also call religious thought a 'societal paradigm' -- the difference is that religion has already been historically manifested, whereas Marxism has not.

It's easy to see why people would accuse Marxism of being a religion, because it's paradigmatic, but it *is* scientific in its method and can also develop its repertoire by analyzing continuously unfolding world events.

Astarte

20th August 2013, 23:51

We could call Marxism a 'societal paradigm', and also call religious thought a 'societal paradigm' -- the difference is that religion has already been historically manifested, whereas Marxism has not.

Your arguments are almost as bad as your diagrams. Though classless society has not been attained, state sponsored atheism has existed, and has manifested as a social paradigm. The dogma it imposes has been found to be just as rigid as any organized religion.

ckaihatsu

21st August 2013, 00:03

Your arguments are almost as bad as your diagrams.

Though classless society has not been attained, state sponsored atheism has existed, and has manifested as a social paradigm. The dogma it imposes has been found to be just as rigid as any organized religion.

Your *conclusions* are as bad as your insults -- just because a particular country happened to take a hard line, and enforcement, against religion, doesn't mean that all revolutionaries, including myself, would do it the same way. I find persecution on a sectarian basis to be counterproductive, but would gladly welcome a real civil separation between politics (state) and religion.

Dagoth Ur

21st August 2013, 00:13

State atheism is bullshit as much as any state metaphysics. State's don't make policy on whether unicorns exist so why identify on the basis of something that's unreal?

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2013, 00:15

Whoosh!
If the world is independent, prove it.
Prove there were people before me. Prove this isn't just an elaborate dream I'm having.
I mean I believe that people existed before me, but I don't have certain proof. I have what people told me, but that *could* be falsification. An elaborate ploy.
Or I am dreaming.

Well, here you are again, so it must be that I didn't manage to prove that you exist as part of my abstractions. It seems you're independent of my thought process after all. Or, I might give it a go for a few days more and see what happens.

On a more serious note, you do not understand how the process of providing proof works. If you think that everything is a product of your elaborate dream, it is up to you to provide proof. This is called the burden of proof, and unfortunately for you, it's squarely on you.

And finally, you do not fave any reasonable basis to conclude that some kind of falsification might be at play here. In this case, even if that were true, there still would have to be an agent performing this falsification. God, perhaps? But I hope that you wouldn't be so foolish to assume so. And fundamentally, any such hyperbolic doubt that approaches a kind of an epistemological paranoia is absolutely useless. Want proof that other people existed prior to you being born? Take a look at an elderly person you know or consult an encyclopedia. And then proceed to provide a reasonable basis for your doubt that this might be a product of your dream states or falsification. Because, merely saying something could be the way you imagine it doesn't make it so.

Remus Bleys

21st August 2013, 00:30

Well, here you are again, so it must be that I didn't manage to prove that you exist as part of my abstractions. It seems you're independent of my thought process after all. Or, I might give it a go for a few days more and see what happens.

On a more serious note, you do not understand how the process of providing proof works. If you think that everything is a product of your elaborate dream, it is up to you to provide proof. This is called the burden of proof, and unfortunately for you, it's squarely on you.

And finally, you do not fave any reasonable basis to conclude that some kind of falsification might be at play here. In this case, even if that were true, there still would have to be an agent performing this falsification. God, perhaps? But I hope that you wouldn't be so foolish to assume so. And fundamentally, any such hyperbolic doubt that approaches a kind of an epistemological paranoia is absolutely useless. Want proof that other people existed prior to you being born? Take a look at an elderly person you know or consult an encyclopedia. And then proceed to provide a reasonable basis for your doubt that this might be a product of your dream states or falsification. Because, merely saying something could be the way you imagine it doesn't make it so.
Yet saying the world exists differently (nay, independently) then how you personally interpret it doesn't require the burden of proof?

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2013, 00:36

Yet saying the world exists differently (nay, independently) then how you personally interpret it doesn't require the burden of proof?
I can't prove that all of this shit isn't you dreaming (an absurd, fanciful "hypothesis").
I can however point out that recorded history, for instance, shows just that, something independent of my thought process, in actual existence. And me touching the lamp on my table, which is neither part of my body nor a product of my thoughts, me trying to abstract you and the lamp, as well as my limbs, into nothingness, but failing.

This is getting quite tiresome since you seem to insist on obvious absurdities.

Bostana

21st August 2013, 00:37

'paganism' is a broad term. There are many different religions in paganism. Such as Wicca, Astaru, Kemetic Tradition, etc, etc.And of course Wicca can't speak for followers of Astaru, vice versa, and so on and so forth. I am sure there could be a religion considered pagan that shares the same views as Marxism. From what I know of Wicca and Wiccans, they are very leftist and I am sure some of them consider themselves Marxists.

But the best way to find out is to ask a pagan. I hear revleft had a user who was a follower of Heathenism and Norse Gods.

Remus Bleys

21st August 2013, 01:44

I can't prove that all of this shit isn't you dreaming (an absurd, fanciful "hypothesis").
I can however point out that recorded history, for instance, shows just that, something independent of my thought process, in actual existence. And me touching the lamp on my table, which is neither part of my body nor a product of my thoughts, me trying to abstract you and the lamp, as well as my limbs, into nothingness, but failing.

This is getting quite tiresome since you seem to insist on obvious absurdities. Its wonderful that you don't have to provide any evidence for your positive assertions about the world, but theists do. But you're right, because you are so smart and just superior to everyone else, huh?

Fakeblock

21st August 2013, 03:00

In that it kept society working towards a common goal. Like building pyramids or any other impressive ancient feat. By feudalism it was providing the justification for aristocracy and monarchy (an important advance for humanity).

So religion in the ancient world had no class character and it existed only to unite 'society'? Incidentally in Egyptian mythology the god Ra was the father of the pharaohs and they had divine right to rule. In Rome patricians were thought to be descendants of senators elected by Romulus and in the earlier Republic higher priesthood was reserved for them. Religion was, even then, used as a justification for the dictatorship of the ruling classes.

It's not meaningless because I find meaning in it. Sure my meaning is personal and individual but who gives a shit if my faith has meaning? Do you really care?

No, I don't. However, for the purpose of this debate, it is necessary to establish whether God is just a figment of your imagination or an objective truth. You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter whether God's existence is objective or not, because you find meaning in your faith. There are two possible conclusions that can be reached from this: either (a) he exists only in your mind or (b) reality is subjective, what you think is true becomes true by default. It should be obvious why neither conclusions are compatible with Marxism.

We're materialists dude. A faith cannot be judged by its universality but by its material effects.

Maybe, but I'm not trying to judge any faiths. I'm saying that idealist (and religions are inherently idealist) ideologies are only compatible with objective, scientific methods to a small extent.

And dude why wouldn't religion change with the times? Do you think some infinite being capable of creating and knowing the whole universe would give us a static religion? A static religion for a dynamic species? Is God like retarded to you?

The notion that religion changes because of God's will and not because of changes in modes of production is idealist.

Do the changes in humanity since the writing of Genesis, for instance, make the creation tale untrue? Has humanity changed so much that eating pork is cool now? Is sodomy still sinful, did Jesus still turn water into wine? Nothing has changed in humanity, other than the fact that we produce more effectively, differently and through different social structures. Change in religion and our worldview in general is just a result of that, not of God's wish.

Okay but I did it. It's not so hard. Prove to me how I'm not a diamat using Marxist. Also hard lols at claiming Marxism is politically unbiased.

Well, I don't know much about your specific beliefs, but you say this:

Personally I adhere to a vision of Allah as a creator who sparked existence with laws like diamat and then let it be. His Infinite Self means he knows every thing we'll ever do but that's not fate. Even revelation itself was a product of man. Islam is for us, Allah could never be constrained by such small ideas.

First of all, how is it not fate? If Allah knows everything that is going to happen, it must be predetermined. Second of all, you believe that material realities are products of the ideas of an almighty being, which is pure idealism.

Furthermore, I'd say that a materialist understanding of social relations contradicts an idealist understanding of the physical world. Human relationships are, at least in part, determined by the conditions of the physical world. If the state of the world is controlled by God, he indirectly interferes in human social relations.

And Marxism is politically unbiased. Although it might lead many people to communism (and vice versa) and many communists are Marxists, Marxism is still a scientific paradigm, as opposed to communism, which is an ideology. Class struggle, dialectics and the law of value are objective and unbiased. It's perfectly possible to be an apolitical Marxist.

I'm not an idealist and I challenge you to expose me engaging in idealism in any sense. I've got 13k posts over on S-E that you can look through too. Shouldn't be hard since I must be an idealist. Otherwise I, by my existence, defeat your logic.

This is a pretty lazy argument tbh. No, I'm not going to look through your posts on another website. If you want me to criticise your beliefs more thoroughly, you are more than welcome to give a detailed explanation of them here, otherwise I won't be bothered.

Zostrianos

21st August 2013, 03:40

But the best way to find out is to ask a pagan. I hear revleft had a user who was a follower of Heathenism and Norse Gods.

Redheathen, I don't know if he's still around though. Unfortunately, Germanic, Norse and Slavic neopaganism, especially in Europe, has been increasingly taken over by Neonazis and nationalists. If I recall there have actually been schisms within those movements because of it.

Wicca, Hermeticism, Kemetism, Thelema, and similar movements are usually left leaning and highly universalist.

Comrade Chernov

21st August 2013, 04:55

What do you mean, religious people can't be Marxists? Marxism is secular, but it doesn't mean you have to get rid of religion. Christian Communism is a thing that exists, and I have a friend in Great Britain who's a Muslim Marxist.

Bea Arthur

21st August 2013, 05:02

Why can't pagans be Marxists? This sounds highly discriminatory and prejudiced, not to mention authoritarian. Who appointed you all to declare who can and cannot be a marxist?

Jimmie Higgins

21st August 2013, 06:07

I think there are several different levels to this question:

1. Marxism is materialist, so as 9mm has explained, as a view it rejects idealist notions of the world. As an atheist, I think this view also implies an larger rejection of idealism altogether. This implication would mean even religious views that are comparable in a practical sense are in conflict with a Marxist view.

2. Religious people can be dedicated class revolutionaries. I think we're all mostly in agreement on this. As long as a religious person believes that humans can and should control their own worldly affairs, and more specifically that the working class should run things in their common interest, then there is no issue. Some religious ideas can conflict, like pacifism or belief that man can not influence the world and everything is divinely orchestrated... But in a practical sense these ideas are not uniform in religions.

3. On a practical level, can an induvidual be a dedicated Marxist and have religious ideas? Yes, as others have said people generally hold contradictory ideas. And on a practical level, there are ways people pick and choose what they believe. So just as a Christian biologist, uses materialism in his study and doesn't attribute the phenomena he observes in this work as direct divine action or magic or whatnot, then there is no real issue with this contradiction.

I believe this last point is due to religion serving needs for people on different levels. So of the appeal of religion is the meditative aspects, the community created by it, the structure of rituals which can help in self discipline. In other words, sometimes the worldview is actually not the main appeal and Marxism doesn't offer much in terms of mental tranquility or personal self-help.

Beeth

21st August 2013, 15:06

Thirsty Crow

21st August 2013, 15:18

Its wonderful that you don't have to provide any evidence for your positive assertions about the world, but theists do. But you're right, because you are so smart and just superior to everyone else, huh?
First of all, I provided evidence. Browse through my previous posts (and even the one you're quoting) and see for yourself.
And of course, what you're attributing to me isn't anything I ever said or thought.

Rafiq

21st August 2013, 18:41

As materialists we must recognize the limitations of bourgeois empiricism (especially of the Anglo Saxon tradition) because it is not exclusively materialist. It allows for idiot religious intellectuals to be taken semi seriously.

Dagoth Ur

22nd August 2013, 04:57

Except that applying empiricism to religion is retarded. Materialism suffices and allows me to be religious too. Explain what contradiction I must have. And before you try to call me an idealist, stop, unless you have some kind of quotable evidence. Pejoratives don't count afterall.

argeiphontes

22nd August 2013, 10:00

....It puts faith in nothing, and how one can even come to this conclusion is beyond me. The entire premise is that there is no reason to believe that anything exists outside of the material world, if you follow a proper scientific methodology that is. There is literally no evidence, except of course for a handful of ancient texts, to support otherwise.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The claim that nothing exists other than matter and energy, in the forms and interactions that have heretofore been discovered, isn't sound unless you also claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Otherwise someone is just using belief, IMO. This is why there's metaphysics, to check your physics.

On another note, its interesting that Marx thought religion would just go away. It seems to me (and Jung, from whom I stole the idea) that religion is a spontaneous irrational process of the human mind and can't be eradicated. Those pressures, for lack of a better term, would just be released thru other valves, like the James Randi Foundation--check that board out for some serious "religion". ;-)

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

22nd August 2013, 10:01

Do you honestly deny militant atheists do not do the same thing? Militant atheists pronounce judgement on the ultimate nature of reality based on the experience their five sense and the tools their five senses create for them and come to the conclusion, through their own ideologically materialist collective solipsism that reality is 100% only what is immediately apparent to them and anything outside of what they, in their own insulated ideological community believe to exist simply cannot. People who have had spiritual experiences do the same thing (pronounce judgement on the nature of reality based on their own personal experience) but also incorporate experiences into their world view that are not conveyable by way of the mechanisms of the five human senses or can be communicated or transmitted by way of these.

If your claims can't be "communicated by way of the five human senses", they are meaningless - they aren't claims at all. And materialists discount their own personal experience, if it does not stand up to scrutiny, all the time. Hallucinations, for example, irrational feelings of being watched etc. etc.

That said, I have no idea what the "ultimate" "nature" of reality is. I suspect the two words I have placed in quotation marks mean nothing - like "absolute", "true", "real", when used to qualify words such as "reality". It's a very worn-out trick, used by the religious - accept everything that has been scientifically proven but insist that the Really Real Reality is somehow more in line with religious idealism.

Materialism supposes that the world exists independently of our abstractions.
Prove the world exists independently of your abstractions.

If I assume that the world does not exist independently of my abstractions, it would follow that I could abstract some very odious bills away. And yet - I check my work desk, and there they are. Curious.

The proof of the pudding, to be completely cliched, is in the eating. We know that an external material world exists because we successfully act in the world under that assumption.

So you aren't a militant atheist after all. Good. Why didn't you just say this in the first place? Can you tell me again why there is an irreconcilable gulf between the application of historical materialism to the development of society and history and holding personal spiritual beliefs?

Because the basis of the former - dialectical materialism - is incompatible with the basis of the latter - idealism. Sure, people can hold two or more contradictory standpoints. But eclecticism results in both of the ideas that were mashed together being applied inconsistently. Oh, don't take my word for it - look at what happened to Bogdanov, to Bloch, and so on, and so on.

Not to mention that, again, Marxism is scientific, religion is moralistic. Political Marxism bases itself on the class interest of the proletariat, religion on some sort of universal supra-class morality. Marxism is libertarian since it sees through "moral" prescriptions and recognises them as instruments of class dictatorship, religion wishes to push its arbitrary codes on people who couldn't care less.

State atheism is bullshit as much as any state metaphysics. State's don't make policy on whether unicorns exist so why identify on the basis of something that's unreal?

In fact, states rule on "metaphysical" matters all the time. In most states, for example, the state refuses to pay for homeopathic treatment - for good reasons.

Why can't pagans be Marxists? This sounds highly discriminatory and prejudiced, not to mention authoritarian. Who appointed you all to declare who can and cannot be a marxist?

And there we have it, the usual appeal to emotion. Marxism is a science. If you want to call yourself a Marxist without accepting its underlying scientific assumptions, don't go crying about authoritarianism and discrimination when no one believes you.

Not to mention that, if someone had stated that people who believe in neoclassical bourgeois economics can't be Marxist, no one would be offended. But religion is always a special case, there are always people who think everyone else should tie themselves into knots in order to accommodate the religious.

ckaihatsu

22nd August 2013, 21:03

People don't think of philosophy or politics 24/7. They also think of personal stuff - reducing stress in their lives, to be joyful, to have a sense of belonging, etc. This void is filled by religion - meditation could reduce stress, going to church may give you a sense of community, and so on. In this context, religion DOES play a positive role - it gives people some sort of security, peace, and comfort. Marxism can't offer any of this - it does not promise to in any event - since its concerns revolve around politics rather than around personal matters.

Granted, but since individual personal feelings of 'stress', 'community', 'security', 'peace', and 'comfort' (etc.) are very subjective, a rational / Marxist approach can have positive *implications* for all of the above -- namely that the individual *can* take a pro-active role over such matters and not *passively* leave such concerns to a "supernatural realm" and/or social authority.

So, bottom line, if people can handle everything in their lives through the almighty Marxist method alone, then great. Lesser mortals may take recourse to religion, if only to handle stress, sorrow, and all the rest. Hopefully, the almighty Marxists can forgive them for seeking solace in such unscientific areas.

Your use of modesty here as a defense for theism is flawless, but that doesn't make the use of 'belief' *progressive* in any way whatsoever.

It seems to me that you're putting up a firewall between a rational approach to the world, and a rational approach to one's own life. Sure, Marxism doesn't directly address living and lifestyle issues, but since we're all affected by the larger world, it isn't wholly *irrelevant* to our personal lives, either....

[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

http://s6.postimage.org/zbpxjshkd/1_History_Macro_Micro_Precision.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/zbpxjshkd/)

philosophical abstractions

http://s6.postimage.org/i7hg698j1/120404_philosophical_abstractions_RENDER_sc_12_1.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/i7hg698j1/)

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The claim that nothing exists other than matter and energy, in the forms and interactions that have heretofore been discovered, isn't sound unless you also claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

This is a good point, and reminds us to keep an open mind despite Western science's impressive prowess to-date.

Otherwise someone is just using belief, IMO. This is why there's metaphysics, to check your physics.

Agreed.

On another note, its interesting that Marx thought religion would just go away. It seems to me (and Jung, from whom I stole the idea) that religion is a spontaneous irrational process of the human mind and can't be eradicated.

I tend to think that 'belief' results internally as a desperate attempt to resolve cognitive dissonance.

Those pressures, for lack of a better term, would just be released thru other valves, like the James Randi Foundation--check that board out for some serious "religion". ;-)

You have a good point about 'skepticism' run amuk -- the practice of science can be just as dogmatic as any religion or politics.

Astarte

23rd August 2013, 02:12

If your claims can't be "communicated by way of the five human senses", they are meaningless - they aren't claims at all.

What complete drivel. Enlightenment, spiritual and mystical experiences have been reported for thousands of years by people from every culture and background. To deny that the testimony of experiences of transpersonal states of consciousness is not in and of itself empirical evidence of something that cannot be studied by way of the material tools man fashions, but rather only by way of the mind and consciousness is ridiculous.

And materialists discount their own personal experience, if it does not stand up to scrutiny, all the time. Hallucinations, for example, irrational feelings of being watched etc. etc.
That sounds more like a situation of schizophrenia rather than a spiritual or enlightenment experience. But I suppose to an atheist they are just about the same thing. The reason why is because an atheist would be terrified of such experiences and try with all their psychic (and material) resources to repress, shut down and ignore such psychic content - haha, which of course will only drive it deeper into repression and ultimately result in an even more complete break down and shattering of the psyche at some unforeseen future point.

That said, I have no idea what the "ultimate" "nature" of reality is.
Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

I suspect the two words I have placed in quotation marks mean nothing - like "absolute", "true", "real", when used to qualify words such as "reality". It's a very worn-out trick, used by the religious - accept everything that has been scientifically proven but insist that the Really Real Reality is somehow more in line with religious idealism.
All it means is that reality transcends complete human comprehension. By way of your denying that the nature of reality transcends complete human comprehension you turn materialism into a "theory of everything" and simply elevate the material world to the "absolute reality" by way of attesting nothing parallel, overlapping, high or lower can possibly exist, which is, at its core actually a metaphysical proposition.

If I assume that the world does not exist independently of my abstractions, it would follow that I could abstract some very odious bills away. And yet - I check my work desk, and there they are. Curious.
But when you die where are they exactly? Who will be around to tell you they are still there?

The proof of the pudding, to be completely cliched, is in the eating. We know that an external material world exists because we successfully act in the world under that assumption.
You act in the material world from the quite literal outlook of your own noggin and sensory perception, and little more - if this is good enough proof for you, then that is no business of mine.

But eclecticism results in both of the ideas that were mashed together being applied inconsistently. Oh, don't take my word for it - look at what happened to Bogdanov, to Bloch, and so on, and so on.
Nonsense. End up like Bogdanov? You mean beating Lenin in a chess match? Bogdanov himself wasn't even anti-materialist, so your example already falls flat on its face. Bogdanov died as a result of receiving contaminated blood after a blood transfusion (the 11th one or so he performed on himself) during a long series of medical experiments with longevity - according to you does all medical research having to do with extending the human life span amount to mysticism, or does it just make flashy rhetoric because you once heard Bogdanov was involved with some things called "God-Building" and Proletkult? According to your line of argument anyone who died in the pursuit of scientific experimentation has got to be a kooky self-contradictory mystic! As far as "Bloch" goes, you are going to have to be more specific.

Not to mention that, again, Marxism is scientific, religion is moralistic. Political Marxism bases itself on the class interest of the proletariat, religion on some sort of universal supra-class morality. Marxism is libertarian since it sees through "moral" prescriptions and recognises them as instruments of class dictatorship, religion wishes to push its arbitrary codes on people who couldn't care less.

And speaking of old tricks, you are arguing against organized religion, rather than personal spirituality. Tell me how the Brethren of the Free-Spirit was not also a form of open rebellion and liberation from class and religion for its time. Finally, I have the utmost disdain for the association of Marxism with the word "libertarian" - in truth there is no such thing and anyone who says there is is more mystical than I. In as far as the human condition goes, reality is "Bonapartist".

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

23rd August 2013, 11:10

What complete drivel. Enlightenment, spiritual and mystical experiences have been reported for thousands of years by people from every culture and background.

So, how have the reports of these experiences reached us? Mostly in writing, or in speech for a minority of cases - "five human senses", as you term it. Of course, these reports often involve claims about something that "can't be expressed" or something to that effect - and it really isn't difficult to see how nonsensical that is.

To deny that the testimony of experiences of transpersonal states of consciousness is not in and of itself empirical evidence of something that cannot be studied by way of the material tools man fashions, but rather only by way of the mind and consciousness is ridiculous.

As per my previous point, much of this "evidence" is nonsensical or vague. Clear reports count as evidence - but they are not sufficient evidence. Much more is needed than reports, even if they are common. Reports of flying serpents and giant humans are also common.

That sounds more like a situation of schizophrenia rather than a spiritual or enlightenment experience.

I never claimed that these experienced are similar to "spiritual or enlightenment experience". My point was simply that materialists do not take their experience at face value, as you allege.

But I suppose to an atheist they are just about the same thing. The reason why is because an atheist would be terrified of such experiences and try with all their psychic (and material) resources to repress, shut down and ignore such psychic content - haha, which of course will only drive it deeper into repression and ultimately result in an even more complete break down and shattering of the psyche at some unforeseen future point.

Nice irrelevant psychological speculation and psychobabble. I would offer to mail you a check, but this is so bad, you should be paying me for reading through it.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

What "suspicions"?

All it means is that reality transcends complete human comprehension. By way of your denying that the nature of reality transcends complete human comprehension you turn materialism into a "theory of everything" and simply elevate the material world to the "absolute reality" by way of attesting nothing parallel, overlapping, high or lower can possibly exist, which is, at its core actually a metaphysical proposition.

Again, what is "complete human comprehension"? You throw grandiose-sounding words around, but what do they mean? And yes, materialism is a solution of a problem that is sometimes considered metaphysical, but a solution that is completely opposed to the actual practice of idealistic metaphysics.

But when you die where are they exactly? Who will be around to tell you they are still there?

Why would anyone need to tell me? I have seen people die, and all of their possessions have survived them. People sometimes go through clinical death only to be resuscitated, and anyone who has been in the same room can confirm to them that the bed, the table and medical equipment did not disappear the moment they stopped thinking about it.

You act in the material world from the quite literal outlook of your own noggin and sensory perception, and little more - if this is good enough proof for you, then that is no business of mine.

The first clause is obviously false - my expectation that I will die if I fall from the tenth floor is neither "the quite literal outlook of my own noggin" nor sensory perception. As for the second clause, that is the only sort of proof that is possible - the criterion of practice is the only serious epistemic criterion.

Nonsense. End up like Bogdanov? You mean beating Lenin in a chess match? Bogdanov himself wasn't even anti-materialist, so your example already falls flat on its face. Bogdanov died as a result of receiving contaminated blood after a blood transfusion (the 11th one or so he performed on himself) during a long series of medical experiments with longevity - according to you does all medical research having to do with extending the human life span amount to mysticism, or does it just make flashy rhetoric because you once heard Bogdanov was involved with some things called "God-Building" and Proletkult? According to your line of argument anyone who died in the pursuit of scientific experimentation has got to be a kooky self-contradictory mystic! As far as "Bloch" goes, you are going to have to be more specific.

Ernst Bloch, the German idealistic revisionist and liberal. And Bogdanov never abandoned his idealist "empirio-monism". The point was that their philosophical idealism led these figures into revisionism and opportunism.

And speaking of old tricks, you are arguing against organized religion, rather than personal spirituality.

I am not. Or do you claim that your "personal spirituality" contains no moral rules that you wish to impose on other people?

Tell me how the Brethren of the Free-Spirit was not also a form of open rebellion and liberation from class and religion for its time.

Now, here's an interesting question - what class led this "rebellion"? Against what class? As for "liberation", they only managed to liberate themselves from their mortal bodies.

Finally, I have the utmost disdain for the association of Marxism with the word "libertarian" - in truth there is no such thing and anyone who says there is is more mystical than I. In as far as the human condition goes, reality is "Bonapartist".

"Reality is Bonapartist"? For the third time, you string words together, and the result makes no sense whatsoever. How is reality Bonapartist? Marxism is libertarian (in the social sense; of course when it comes to the revolution Marxism is solidly authoritarian) since we do not put stock in morality, we see through mores and ethics as tools of class domination. We do not care what "moral" arguments you might think of "against" homosexuality, for example, or abortion, we recognise how homophobia and misogyny are part of the bourgeois dictatorship.

ÑóẊîöŉ

23rd August 2013, 11:21

Except that applying empiricism to religion is retarded.

Why?

All religions make claims about reality. If said claims can't be empirically verified then they can't be proven true or false, and are thus useless as guides to action in the material world we live in day to day.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

23rd August 2013, 11:27

Why?

Because religion is a special delicate flower that shouldn't be put under the scrutiny of mean old science, dontchaknow?

Zealot

23rd August 2013, 13:28

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

23rd August 2013, 13:38

Our five senses are amazingly poor as a matter of fact, which isn't surprising since we're not much more than semi-intelligent apes. Do you have tetrachromatic vision, electrocommunication abilities, or navigate via bio sonar, for instance? In other words, our conception of reality is far from complete and dogmatic empiricism is just as bad as dogmatic religion.

...except that our theories about the world depend on instrumentation and modelling, not our senses. I don't know why people focus on senses. That's Machian nonsense. No one is able to see atomic nuclei for example - but we do know quite a bit about them.

Remus Bleys

23rd August 2013, 19:20

anyone who has been in the same room can confirm to them that the bed, the table and medical equipment did not disappear the moment they stopped thinking about it.

Well, how? How can they confirm this?

Thirsty Crow

23rd August 2013, 19:54

Well, how? How can they confirm this?
By observing the table. How about you check that a wild bear 10 feet away from you hasn't disappeared in the wild after you stopped thinking about it and looked away?

But surely, in such a case it might very well be that it reappeared once you felt that unpleasant sensation of being mauled to death?

But then again this sensation itself might be an illusion produced by the equally illusory action of the so called five senses since we don't have tetrachromatic vision, electrocommunication abilities, or the ability to navigate via bio sonar.

Everything is nothing, comrades.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

23rd August 2013, 20:07

Well, how? How can they confirm this?

By observing the table, for example? If you intend to play one of those silly games where you pretend that you don't understand how everyday events work, count me out. Everyone can see what hole you've dug yourself into trying to defend your idealism.

ckaihatsu

23rd August 2013, 21:54

[A] situation of schizophrenia rather than a spiritual or enlightenment experience [...] to an atheist [...] are just about the same thing. The reason why is because an atheist would be terrified of such experiences and try with all their psychic (and material) resources to repress, shut down and ignore such psychic content - haha, which of course will only drive it deeper into repression and ultimately result in an even more complete break down and shattering of the psyche at some unforeseen future point.

Whew! Wow. Guess you "got" us all there -- atheists have now been stripped to the core and have been found wanting because, according to you, atheism is synonymous with a mainstream Western anti-theistic scientific canon / dogma. The book has been closed on science forevermore, everything possible has been discovered and learned, and any empirical challenge from now until infinity can be readily, easily laughed-off, with prejudice.

Gonna stay up late tonight listening for the sound of psyches shattering -- ? (grin)

Remus Bleys

24th August 2013, 03:01

[QUOTE=Semendyaev;2655467]By observing the table, for example? If you intend to play one of those silly games where you pretend that you don't understand how everyday events work, count me out. Everyone can see what hole you've dug yourself into trying to defend your idealism.[/QUOTE I wasn't debating that you. But it is impossible to know these things for 100% certainty. It could very well be likely thses things stop existing and only occur when they come back and if it gets you without you or someone else seeing this and your dead, the argument can (not that I agree with this) be made that the falling tree was a subconscious thought, you were thinking about. Or the table, stops existing until you remeber. It is impossible to know this for certain, 100%. I was challengung the notion these things can be certain facts, I wasn't saying I didn't believe in these facts. Though obviously. Your too intellectually superior to even entertain notions you disagree with.

Chris

24th August 2013, 03:15

Varies depending on what kind of 'paganism' one refers to. In my experience, pagans and paganism ranges from downright materialistic views on life consisting of venerating and respecting the natural forces that can be observed (although, often anthromorphising them for the purpose of moral lessons), to belief in physical pantheons of gods that can be directly interacted with. I see no reason why the former kind of pagan can't be a Marxist. Personally, I am the former kind of pagan and I'm also a Marxist-Leninist.

Zealot

24th August 2013, 03:36

...except that our theories about the world depend on instrumentation and modelling, not our senses. I don't know why people focus on senses. That's Machian nonsense. No one is able to see atomic nuclei for example - but we do know quite a bit about them.

But at the end of the day our perception and construction of reality is dependent upon the five senses. Thus, the psychoexperiences that Astarte speaks of are only invalid if you believe in dogmatic empiricism. I would say that psychedelic experiences operate on a similar level because 1) they cannot be explained by words, 2) are not necessarily reliant on any of our five senses and 3) the only people who can relate to your psychedelic experience are other psychonauts; everyone else is going to rubbish your claims of deep insights as unempirical.

ÑóẊîöŉ

27th August 2013, 21:13

But at the end of the day our perception and construction of reality is dependent upon the five senses. Thus, the psychoexperiences that Astarte speaks of are only invalid if you believe in dogmatic empiricism.

If they're not invalid, then what makes them valid?

I would say that psychedelic experiences operate on a similar level because 1) they cannot be explained by words,

Nonsense. Psychedelic experiences might be more difficult to explain than most due to their unfamiliarity, but they are certainly explicable. Otherwise nobody would bother writing "trip reports".

2) are not necessarily reliant on any of our five senses

How so? Senses might seem to merge or cross over during a psychedelic experience, and one's perception of the world can be altered, but this all a blending and a twisting of pre-existing perceptions, rather than the emergence of something wholly different.

and 3) the only people who can relate to your psychedelic experience are other psychonauts; everyone else is going to rubbish your claims of deep insights as unempirical.

I'd say it depends on the insights being claimed. I'm still skeptical that LSD can give one any insights into the greater universe, in spite of having experienced its effects for myself. On the other hand, since it involves chemicals interacting with one's brain, I'm willing to grant the possibility that taking LSD might grant insight into one's own internal mental universe.

Vanguard1917

27th August 2013, 21:39

As perhaps the most silly of the modern 'religions', contemporary Paganism especially has no qualities which Marxists can sympathise with. Christianity at least contains universalist and humanist elements (irredeemably buried under a bunch of nonsense, naturally), which makes it far closer to us than crap about the Wicca and hand-holding ceremonies around a tree.

Thirsty Crow

27th August 2013, 21:56

But at the end of the day our perception and construction of reality is dependent upon the five senses. Thus, the psychoexperiences that Astarte speaks of are only invalid if you believe in dogmatic empiricism. What is dogmatic about that kind of "empiricism"? And what does it mean for a "psycho-experience to be invalid"? Surely, no one's denying that something is going on. The only assertion, preposterous and absurd, that is being denied is that such experience constitutes evidence about the state of the existing world.

Thirsty Crow

27th August 2013, 22:04

It could very well be likely these things stop existing and only occur when they come back and if it gets you without you or someone else seeing this and your dead, the argument can (not that I agree with this) be made that the falling tree was a subconscious thought, you were thinking about.
You can make an "argument" that there is an invisible pink teapot in Earth's orbit, because hell why not? Everything is possible since we can let our imagination do its thing and forget about being reasonable, especially with our language use.

But to return to what I argued earlier. To make an argument, you'd have to provide some evidential basis for your claims, or merely provide a reason for your suspicion, grounded in what happens in the world. Of course, you won't do that since your entire position is exhausted in this childish game of "If I say or think it is possible, then surely it is possible, and you can't prove me wrong". In other words, no fancy product of one's imagination or wordplay should be taken as a serious epistemological consideration. Incoherent ramblings don't prove anything about knowledge certainty (especially in such mundane examples).

rolfwar

27th August 2013, 23:06

You can make an "argument" that there is an invisible pink teapot in Earth's orbit, because hell why not? Everything is possible since we can let our imagination do its thing and forget about being reasonable, especially with our language use.

^^The dear old Russel's Teapot never ceases to come in handy.

Dagoth Ur

27th August 2013, 23:55

Which makes the idea of identifying on the rejection of such teapots all the more absurd. Bourgeoisie atheism, especially new atheism, is a weird inversion of theism that operates much as a theism (intolerance for different views, desire to evangelize others, absolute faith in the correctness of their view, etc). Dawkins is creepy like Khomeini.

Zealot

28th August 2013, 00:26

If they're not invalid, then what makes them valid?

I never said they were valid either. I'm merely pointing out that one has to be open to the possibility of experiences and knowledge gained through non-ordinary means.

Nonsense. Psychedelic experiences might be more difficult to explain than most due to their unfamiliarity, but they are certainly explicable. Otherwise nobody would bother writing "trip reports".

Nonsense. Have you ever tried to explain a psychedelic experience to someone who hasn't had one before? At most, you'll have their curiosity peaked, at worst they'll dismiss you as crazy. In any case, the only way that anyone is going to understand you is through direct experience.

How so? Senses might seem to merge or cross over during a psychedelic experience, and one's perception of the world can be altered, but this all a blending and a twisting of pre-existing perceptions, rather than the emergence of something wholly different.

I've projected myself 5 blocks down the road and become my table under the influence of psychedelics. And that's just some of the more basic stuff. So how is that a merging or crossing over of senses? It's something completely different.

I'd say it depends on the insights being claimed. I'm still skeptical that LSD can give one any insights into the greater universe, in spite of having experienced its effects for myself. On the other hand, since it involves chemicals interacting with one's brain, I'm willing to grant the possibility that taking LSD might grant insight into one's own internal mental universe.

Kary Mullis and Francis Crick both claimed to have made their monumental advances in DNA under the influence of LSD. I know for a fact that my creativity increases tenfold using psychoactives. Again, some of the more deeper insights cannot be put into words and direct experience is a must.

Zealot

28th August 2013, 00:51

What is dogmatic about that kind of "empiricism"?

Because as I noted above, our construction of reality is almost entirely dependent upon the five senses. This representation is a poor indicator of the nature of reality since we do not have "tetrachromatic vision, electrocommunication abilities, or navigate via bio sonar", just to name a few examples. Our perception of reality would be much different if we had only just one other sense. I don't really think this is up for debate.

And what does it mean for a "psycho-experience to be invalid"? Surely, no one's denying that something is going on. The only assertion, preposterous and absurd, that is being denied is that such experience constitutes evidence about the state of the existing world.

Insights gained through such experiences have sometimes been empirically confirmed though. This is not to say that any and all psychoexperiences constitute real knowledge of the world but that dogmatic empiricism is an inadequate model to base our reality and knowledge upon and leads to the worst kind of Dawkinsism amongst atheists.

ÑóẊîöŉ

28th August 2013, 01:54

I never said they were valid either. I'm merely pointing out that one has to be open to the possibility of experiences and knowledge gained through non-ordinary means.

If it can't be validated, then how do we even know if it is knowledge and not mere fantasy?

Nonsense. Have you ever tried to explain a psychedelic experience to someone who hasn't had one before? At most, you'll have their curiosity peaked, at worst they'll dismiss you as crazy. In any case, the only way that anyone is going to understand you is through direct experience.

That's a situation common to human experience, and is down to the nature of language. Ever had someone say "you had to be there?" to you? That doesn't mean that LSD or other psychedelics are the key to reality any more than obscure jokes are.

I've projected myself 5 blocks down the road and become my table under the influence of psychedelics. And that's just some of the more basic stuff. So how is that a merging or crossing over of senses? It's something completely different.

Because the explanation that those are the effects that psychedelics have on human brains, and no more, works just as well, if not better. Especially in light of what our knowledge tells about the functional unity of our minds with our brains.

Kary Mullis and Francis Crick both claimed to have made their monumental advances in DNA under the influence of LSD. I know for a fact that my creativity increases tenfold using psychoactives. Again, some of the more deeper insights cannot be put into words and direct experience is a must.

It doesn't matter where inspiration comes from - drugs, sleep deprivation, a muse - it still has to be confirmed through repeated observation/experiment in order to be validated. At least as far as the universe outside of one's own mind is concerned.

Thirsty Crow

28th August 2013, 02:15

Because as I noted above, our construction of reality is almost entirely dependent upon the five senses.In other words, a tautology. Humans perceive the world as humans, and shock and awe, construct scientific accounts if it while relying on...what our very bodies provide us with.

This representation is a poor indicator of the nature of reality since we do not have "tetrachromatic vision, electrocommunication abilities, or navigate via bio sonar"Explain to me just how these "represent reality", in case of the species possessing these abilities. And to conclude, every species' "representation" is a poor indicator of the nature of reality then - only God transcends these corporal problems.

Our perception of reality would be much different if we had only just one other sense. I don't really think this is up for debate.
Well now we have something different yet again. Of course our perception (as opposed to representation) would be different. And? How does this bear upon anything? Do you think that psychedelic and mystic experiences unleash the, let's say, latent "senses" which enable humans to perceive the "ultimate" reality? It's as if your argument tends toward such a conclusion, but you seem to be reluctant to voice it. With good reason, I think.

Insights gained through such experiences have sometimes been empirically confirmed though.
What "insights", what experience, and how? These are the important question here.

Of course this is not to say that any and all psychoexperiences constitute real knowledge of the world but that dogmatic empiricism is an inadequate model to base our reality and knowledge upon and leads to the worst kind of Dawkinsism amongst atheists.Really? So what distinguishes psycho-experiences that constitute real knowledge from those that don't? I'd suspect that this criterion would be post hoc "translation" of these into verifiable statements and its evidential confirmation. Which would make of these experiences no more than hunches, lucky guess, rudimentary hypotheses, intuitions (though that's a novel idea, the process of hypothesis formation while on acid), the choice of word doesn't matter. Not insights, I'm afraid.

And in fact you're using the term "dogmatic" in a terribly wrong way since, in the first place, you equate that straw man of dogmatic empiricism with the simple fact that humans are humans. Is it possible to adopt the psycho-physiological position of dolphins? But of course, as I sad above, this itself is probably nothing more than a cover for introducing some kind of a spiritualism-on-acid (or without) as a perfectly valid way of gaining knowledge into the picture.

Zealot

28th August 2013, 04:31

If it can't be validated, then how do we even know if it is knowledge and not mere fantasy?

Again, I do not try to confine my world-experience within the constructs of dogmatic empiricism because I believe it is pretentious to think we can build a complete and objective account of reality and that the universe is far more greater than we perceive. This is only fantastical to the disciples of Dawkinsism who lack subjective psychedelic and/or spiritual experiences.

That's a situation common to human experience, and is down to the nature of language. Ever had someone say "you had to be there?" to you? That doesn't mean that LSD or other psychedelics are the key to reality any more than obscure jokes are.

These situations are completely different and unrelated. In such a case, we can at least construct in our minds a reasonable representation based on past experiences and so on. Psychedelics are unlike anything one has experienced before and a reasonable construct cannot be recreated at all. Are you seriously comparing psychedelics to a "you had to be there" moment?

Because the explanation that those are the effects that psychedelics have on human brains, and no more, works just as well, if not better. Especially in light of what our knowledge tells about the functional unity of our minds with our brains.

It may definitely be a mere chemical reaction or whatnot. The point is that extra-sensory experiences can and do happen but the prophets of new atheism dismiss them out of hand because they have an irrational hostility to anything that seems slightly supernatural.

It doesn't matter where inspiration comes from - drugs, sleep deprivation, a muse - it still has to be confirmed through repeated observation/experiment in order to be validated. At least as far as the universe outside of one's own mind is concerned.

I guess it depends on the claims being made. Claims about trans-dimensional travel and contact with foreign intelligences, whether spirits or intelligent beings in separate dimensions or something else entirely, are a lot harder to verify. But to a psychonaut these don't really sound that far-fetched and neither is the fact that there would be a material basis if such claims were true. Now I have no intention of trying to prove said claims because direct experience and the changes made in my life are enough for me to value the experience as positive. If the empiricists want to put this down to a chemical reaction then so be it and I have no problem with accepting that chemical reactions produce the extra-sensory insights.

In other words, a tautology. Humans perceive the world as humans, and shock and awe, construct scientific accounts if it while relying on...what our very bodies provide us with.

And, shock and awe, our scientific accounts will be severely restricted on such a basis.

Explain to me just how these "represent reality", in case of the species possessing these abilities. And to conclude, every species' "representation" is a poor indicator of the nature of reality then - only God transcends these corporal problems.

Where does god come into this? I don't believe in any god(s). And to answer your question, what if humans had no eyesight? The world would indeed be a very different experience for most of us and anyone claiming to have "seen" the world would be condemned as a madman.

Well now we have something different yet again. Of course our perception (as opposed to representation) would be different. And? How does this bear upon anything? Do you think that psychedelic and mystic experiences unleash the, let's say, latent "senses" which enable humans to perceive the "ultimate" reality? It's as if your argument tends toward such a conclusion, but you seem to be reluctant to voice it. With good reason, I think.

Because I'm not making that argument. However, I do indeed think that such experiences can open our mind to the possibility of realities and truths outside of empirical boundaries which need not even be a supernatural statement at all, as I have already proved.

What "insights", what experience, and how? These are the important question here.

There's a reason that artists and those with intelligence have sought these experiences for thousands of years as an aid to their endeavors. Maybe try a google search about this.

Really? So what distinguishes psycho-experiences that constitute real knowledge from those that don't? I'd suspect that this criterion would be post hoc "translation" of these into verifiable statements and its evidential confirmation. Which would make of these experiences no more than hunches, lucky guess, rudimentary hypotheses, intuitions (though that's a novel idea, the process of hypothesis formation while on acid), the choice of word doesn't matter. Not insights, I'm afraid.

Well thank god that there are scientists, musicians, and academics around that aren't as straight as you otherwise our science, technology, culture and knowledge would perhaps be decades if not centuries behind as a consequence.

And in fact you're using the term "dogmatic" in a terribly wrong way since, in the first place, you equate that straw man of dogmatic empiricism with the simple fact that humans are humans. Is it possible to adopt the psycho-physiological position of dolphins? But of course, as I sad above, this itself is probably nothing more than a cover for introducing some kind of a spiritualism-on-acid (or without) as a perfectly valid way of gaining knowledge into the picture.

Of course it's not possible (currently, at least) but anyone using the "humans are humans" argument is covering for theological empiricism to shun the unbelievers and any extra-sensory perceptions of reality that don't conform to their narrow worldview.

Also, I would urge everyone to consider the stoned-ape theory of evolution which may sound crazy to most but to anyone who has had personal experience with psychedelics it does seem very possible. From wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_human_e volution)

"Stoned Ape" theory of human evolution

...McKenna proposed that the transformation from humans' early ancestors Homo erectus to the species Homo sapiens mainly had to do with the addition of the mushroom Psilocybe cubensis in its diet... He based his theory on the main effects, or alleged effects, produced by the mushroom. One of the effects that comes about from the ingestion of low doses, which agrees with one of scientist Roland Fischer's findings from the late 1960s-early 1970s, is it significantly improves the visual acuity of humans - so, theoretically, of other human-like mammals too. According to McKenna, this effect would have definitely proven to be of evolutionary advantage to humans' omnivorous hunter-gatherer ancestors that would have stumbled upon it "accidentally"; as it would make it easier for them to hunt.

In higher doses, McKenna claims, the mushroom acts as a sexual stimulator, which would make it even more beneficial evolutionarily, as it would result in more offspring. At even higher doses, the mushroom would have acted to "dissolve boundaries", which would have promoted community-bonding and group sexual activities that would result in a mixing of genes and therefore greater genetic diversity.

The mushroom, according to McKenna, also gave humans their first truly religious experiences and, as he believed, were the basis for the foundation of all subsequent religions to date. For example, he proposed that the biblical Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was actually an entheogenic mushroom. Another factor that McKenna talked about was the mushroom's potency to promote linguistic thinking. This would have promoted vocalisation, which in turn would have acted in cleansing the brain (based on a scientific theory that vibrations from speaking cause the precipitation of impurities from the brain to the cerebrospinal fluid), which would further mutate the brain. All these factors according to McKenna were the most important factors that promoted evolution towards the Homo sapiens species.

Orange Juche

28th August 2013, 14:37

I don't like this idea of persons A, B, or C discussing what D and E are allowed to define themselves as.

Thirsty Crow

28th August 2013, 15:13

There's a reason that artists and those with intelligence have sought these experiences for thousands of years as an aid to their endeavors. Maybe try a google search about this.

You're preaching to the choir.
A little bit of anecdotal information. I do write myself and yes, I've had the experiences you mention, and sure, it's a great way to stimulate creativity. And as I said, it's quite another thing to say that people seek psycho-experiences as an aid in their thinking, but the crucial point is that these on their own do not constitute knowledge.

Some other points:

Now I have no intention of trying to prove said claims because direct experience and the changes made in my life are enough for me to value the experience as positive.Valuing the experiences as positive is something that I think most of us do here. To reiterate, I like it, and I think it does a lot of good for me.

But of course you do not intend to prove some of the more serious claims, which are metaphysical in nature, and which would somehow relate to existing reality. The reason is simple. You cannot.

However, I do indeed think that such experiences can open our mind to the possibility of realities and truths outside of empirical boundaries which need not even be a supernatural statement at all, as I have already proved.What would "realities outside of empirical boundaries" be? I don't think there is any other interpretative possibility apart from referencing some kind of a spiritual, intangible "reality". Now, one can believe all she wants and accept any possibility whatsoever. If it suits you, fine. But to pretend that this somehow proves the inadequacy of the sensory and cognitive apparatus of human beings is not useful since this would have to presuppose some kind of an absolute criterion of adequacy - that is why I mention God, as this would be such criterion.

Well thank god that there are scientists, musicians, and academics around that aren't as straight as you otherwise our science, technology, culture and knowledge would perhaps be decades if not centuries behind as a consequence.Oh boy, here we go. Mean empiricists holding back science. But what is so controversial about the simple claim that all science works in this "empirical" way, and cannot do otherwise - coming up with a hypothesis about the world that is then confirmed or proven false through examination of that same world, or one specific object/process. One can be stoned to death while arriving at the hypothesis, it can be a product of a psycho-experience, that is quite irrelevant. The nature of the statement is what counts, and what kind of actions and cognitive procedures it enables.

Now, do you seriously want to argue that contemporary science (music and culture, this is something different as here the primary function and purpose of the practice is not epistemological -to acquire knowledge - but aesthetic) proceeds to produce metaphysical, unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims? That this is somehow its bedrock?

ÑóẊîöŉ

28th August 2013, 16:27

Again, I do not try to confine my world-experience within the constructs of dogmatic empiricism because I believe it is pretentious to think we can build a complete and objective account of reality and that the universe is far more greater than we perceive. This is only fantastical to the disciples of Dawkinsism who lack subjective psychedelic and/or spiritual experiences.

Let me put it this way; if while under the influence of a psychedelic you had the impression that you could fly without technological assistance, would you jump out of a top-floor window, or would you pause and maybe experiment a little first?

You might think yourself unbound by the confines of material reality, but the rest of the universe has no care for your convictions.

These situations are completely different and unrelated. In such a case, we can at least construct in our minds a reasonable representation based on past experiences and so on. Psychedelics are unlike anything one has experienced before and a reasonable construct cannot be recreated at all. Are you seriously comparing psychedelics to a "you had to be there" moment?

Only on the basis that language is an imperfect tool for conveying experiences, and since psychedelic experiences are rarer than most, it makes perfect sense that our language is poorly constructed for communicating them.

It may definitely be a mere chemical reaction or whatnot. The point is that extra-sensory experiences can and do happen but the prophets of new atheism dismiss them out of hand because they have an irrational hostility to anything that seems slightly supernatural.

It's not "hostility", it's a demand for evidence. The possibility that one is imagining it all needs to be eliminated if we are to reasonably accept claims that psychedelics give one special powers.

I guess it depends on the claims being made. Claims about trans-dimensional travel and contact with foreign intelligences, whether spirits or intelligent beings in separate dimensions or something else entirely, are a lot harder to verify. But to a psychonaut these don't really sound that far-fetched and neither is the fact that there would be a material basis if such claims were true. Now I have no intention of trying to prove said claims because direct experience and the changes made in my life are enough for me to value the experience as positive.

Why? An experience can still be positive even if it is completely imaginary. Just because what's happening before your eyes has no further reality outside of your mind doesn't mean you can't take something from it.

If the empiricists want to put this down to a chemical reaction then so be it and I have no problem with accepting that chemical reactions produce the extra-sensory insights.

But do they? That is what I'm skeptical of. While I would like that to be true, I also don't like fooling myself, and scientific verification provides the best guarantee of genuine confirmation.

Also, I would urge everyone to consider the stoned-ape theory of evolution which may sound crazy to most but to anyone who has had personal experience with psychedelics it does seem very possible. From wiki: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_McKenna#.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_human_e volution)

Terence McKenna is certainly a veritable fountain of interesting thoughts and ideas, and the Stoned Ape hypothesis is one I would consider worth investigating. But such an investigation would have to be done properly, using the powerful tools of scientific enquiry. Just because we like a hypothesis or find it interesting doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

Kind of like the idea of native life on Mars, actually.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

28th August 2013, 17:12

I don't like this idea of persons A, B, or C discussing what D and E are allowed to define themselves as.

I will reply to the rest later, but for the time being I simply wish to comment on this, because I see statements similar to this all the time, and related notions have even made their way into board policy. The thing is, whether you like it or not, there exists an external material world, and facts about this world include how words are commonly used in a given social setting. You can't simply "define yourself" as whatever. Being a member of a group doesn't give you a magical shield against criticism. And people need to stop taking this personally. Marxism is materialist, religion isn't, and if that offends people, well, I'm very sorry, but that's how things are.

Zealot

29th August 2013, 01:46

You're preaching to the choir.
A little bit of anecdotal information. I do write myself and yes, I've had the experiences you mention, and sure, it's a great way to stimulate creativity. And as I said, it's quite another thing to say that people seek psycho-experiences as an aid in their thinking, but the crucial point is that these on their own do not constitute knowledge.

And nowhere have I claimed that.

Valuing the experiences as positive is something that I think most of us do here. To reiterate, I like it, and I think it does a lot of good for me.

But of course you do not intend to prove some of the more serious claims, which are metaphysical in nature, and which would somehow relate to existing reality. The reason is simple. You cannot.

They may or may not be metaphysical in nature and of course I cannot prove them because, as I said, they are currently outside of empirical investigation which itself is problematic for reasons stated previously. This is not an unsound assumption, epistemologically speaking.

What would "realities outside of empirical boundaries" be? I don't think there is any other interpretative possibility apart from referencing some kind of a spiritual, intangible "reality". Now, one can believe all she wants and accept any possibility whatsoever. If it suits you, fine. But to pretend that this somehow proves the inadequacy of the sensory and cognitive apparatus of human beings is not useful since this would have to presuppose some kind of an absolute criterion of adequacy - that is why I mention God, as this would be such criterion.

But we do have an inadequate/limited sensory apparatus. You're denying this to accuse me of theological propositions which has not been my intention.

Oh boy, here we go. Mean empiricists holding back science. But what is so controversial about the simple claim that all science works in this "empirical" way, and cannot do otherwise - coming up with a hypothesis about the world that is then confirmed or proven false through examination of that same world, or one specific object/process. One can be stoned to death while arriving at the hypothesis, it can be a product of a psycho-experience, that is quite irrelevant. The nature of the statement is what counts, and what kind of actions and cognitive procedures it enables.

It's not controversial and I am not degrading science in any way. I'm saying that our scientific accounts will always be limited by the natural empirical boundaries of humans. Thus, extra-sensory psychoexperiences that prompt one to make claims outside of those boundaries cannot be fully understood other than through direct experience. Psychoexperiences that make claims within empirical boundaries can be either proved or disproved.

Now, do you seriously want to argue that contemporary science (music and culture, this is something different as here the primary function and purpose of the practice is not epistemological -to acquire knowledge - but aesthetic) proceeds to produce metaphysical, unverifiable and unfalsifiable claims? That this is somehow its bedrock?

You said that insights are not gained; only lucky guesses. I'm saying that this has indeed happened before and that, had people not sought such experiences, our knowledge and culture would be centuries behind as a consequence.

Let me put it this way; if while under the influence of a psychedelic you had the impression that you could fly without technological assistance, would you jump out of a top-floor window, or would you pause and maybe experiment a little first?

You might think yourself unbound by the confines of material reality, but the rest of the universe has no care for your convictions.

I am not saying that I am unbound by the confines of material reality, I am saying that material reality is unbound by the confines of empirical reality.

Only on the basis that language is an imperfect tool for conveying experiences, and since psychedelic experiences are rarer than most, it makes perfect sense that our language is poorly constructed for communicating them.

That's what I have been trying to stress.

It's not "hostility", it's a demand for evidence. The possibility that one is imagining it all needs to be eliminated if we are to reasonably accept claims that psychedelics give one special powers.

How do you provide evidence of extrasensory psychoexperiences outside the realm of psychonormality?

Why? An experience can still be positive even if it is completely imaginary. Just because what's happening before your eyes has no further reality outside of your mind doesn't mean you can't take something from it.

So why did you say that nonempirical claims "are thus useless as guides to action in the material world we live in day to day."

Terence McKenna is certainly a veritable fountain of interesting thoughts and ideas, and the Stoned Ape hypothesis is one I would consider worth investigating. But such an investigation would have to be done properly, using the powerful tools of scientific enquiry. Just because we like a hypothesis or find it interesting doesn't mean it's necessarily true.

Kind of like the idea of native life on Mars, actually.

Absolutely, but the stoned-ape theory can be empirically investigated and the well-known effects of psychedelics (glossolalia, visual and auditory acuity, and so on) make the hypothesis a lot more plausible than pondering over the question of life on mars.

In short, I think both of you have misunderstood my intentions and statements and have built your arguments on a strawman by making the assumption that my skeptical view of empiricism is tantamount to theology.

ÑóẊîöŉ

29th August 2013, 03:51

I am not saying that I am unbound by the confines of material reality, I am saying that material reality is unbound by the confines of empirical reality.

Material and empirical reality are one and the same.

That's what I have been trying to stress.

The inadequacy of language for conveying personal experience reveals nothing about the nature of those experiences.

How do you provide evidence of extrasensory psychoexperiences outside the realm of psychonormality?

To use your example, presumably there is a difference between actually becoming a table, and merely thinking that is the case.

So why did you say that nonempirical claims "are thus useless as guides to action in the material world we live in day to day."

Because there is a difference between using psychedelic experiences subjectively, for example as an inspiration for fiction, and using them objectively, like trying to predict the future.

Absolutely, but the stoned-ape theory can be empirically investigated and the well-known effects of psychedelics (glossolalia, visual and auditory acuity, and so on) make the hypothesis a lot more plausible than pondering over the question of life on mars.

We can do more than merely ponder the question of life on Mars. We can and have sent probes there, and thanks to such empirical investigation we've found that while it's near-certain that Mars is now a dead world, the question of past life remains open. That sort of thing is how we actually discover the truth about the universe we live in.

In short, I think both of you have misunderstood my intentions and statements and have built your arguments on a strawman by making the assumption that my skeptical view of empiricism is tantamount to theology.

When I asked how one could determine the difference between knowledge and fantasy outside empiricism, your response was to handwave some guff about "build[ing] a complete and objective account of reality" (which I mentioned nothing of) and that "the universe is far more greater than we perceive" (which combines an appeal to ignorance with an inherently unfalsifiable statement).

It might not be theology, but it's similarly lacking in substance.