Is historical material incompatible with religion/metaphysical idealism?

[argeiphontes]

I don't see how it its... historical materialism is a theory about social/historical influence and change being based on the material forces and relations of production, whereas religion is about metaphysics. I think it's possible to believe that either the universe was created by a God(s) or that it is the dream of Vishnu, and still uphold hismat.

The idea that 'religion is the opiate of the masses, though it is the heart of the heartless world' is different, and I don't want to get into that, unless somebody wants to discuss how Marxistm is a substitute for religion, in which case it's still fodder for a different thread. I would specifically care to elicit opinions on whether hismat is compatible with belief in a deity (whatever that may mean) or a non-materialist metaphysics, which I think is the case, but some people in other threads have said isn't. (Rather than pollute other threads, I may as well start one.) I don't think metaphysics has anything to do with hismat.

Edit: Note that my question is different that the sticky up above. I'm only interested in hismat, not the other aspects of communism or Marxism. And I'm including any idealist metaphysics, even if doesn't have a deity. My question is philosophical/theoretical only, not what a good revolutionary would do or anything like that. Those implications are for people to figure out on their own.

[Blake's Baby]

Historical materialism is based on the idea that classes make history - in other words, it is the interaction of people with general social forces (such as the relationship to the means of production) which determine social dynamics. 'The history of all existing societies is the history of class struggle' etc.

If God (gods, The Force, or whatever) created the universe, then, so what? If you want to say what we call the Big Bang is actually God farting, good for you. No-one has to listen to you.

If God (etc) interferes in the Universe, then, no. 'The history of all existing societies is the history of class struggle and Magic Man turning up to throw a Burning Fish in the works, now stop doing that and do this because I had a dream about it' isn't quite the same thing.

[Tim Cornelis]

Additionally, as historical materialists one understands that religion did not exist until the advent of class society and is tied up to the ruling class.

[Red Economist]

The idea that 'religion is the opiate of the masses, though it is the heart of the heartless world' is different, and I don't want to get into that, unless somebody wants to discuss how Marxistm is a substitute for religion, in which case it's still fodder for a different thread. My personal experience is that it is very similar to a religion in terms of it's psychology, but as I marxist I am more introspective than most I think in this area as I have a heavy Freudian bias as part of being a Marxist. I find it relies quite heavily on using intuition to figure out the 'true' nature of man- which is often not a rational process, but a very emotional one.


I would specifically care to elicit opinions on whether hismat is compatible with belief in a deity (whatever that may mean) or a non-materialist metaphysics, which I think is the case, but some people in other threads have said isn't. (Rather than pollute other threads, I may as well start one.) I don't think metaphysics has anything to do with hismat.Strictly speaking, historical materialism is compatible with belief in a deity as it is a philosophy of society, covering the conflict between classes. There are instances where people were Marxists and religious. Islamic Marxism is one, but I remember that a lot of Polish Communists remained Catholic. However, your probably going to get involved in a lot of problems if this god has a role in society or morality.
When you get a historical materialist who is also a dialectical materialist, as a rule, they will be atheist. Dialectical Materialism is pretty much an attempt to take god out of the equation as the prime mover in terms of a philosophy of nature. (e.g. The Soviets had problems with the concept of the big bang because it leaves room for god in it).

[argeiphontes]

Additionally, as historical materialists one understands that religion did not exist until the advent of class society and is tied up to the ruling class.

Wouldn't anthropologists disagree? (Not that its tied up with the ruling class, but that it didn't exist before class society.)

[Blake's Baby]

Why would anthropologists disagree?

[Tim Cornelis]

Some hunter-gatherers may have had spiritual beliefs of some kind, but not religion -- a system of faith (rituals, rules, restrictions, and a coherent concept of deities). Others appear to not have much spiritual beliefs either.


The Hadza are not big on ritual. There is not much room in their lives, it seems, for mysticism, for spirits, for pondering the unknown. There is no specific belief in an afterlife—every Hadza I spoke with said he had no idea what might happen after he died. There are no Hadza priests or shamans or medicine men. Missionaries have produced few converts. I once asked Onwas to tell me about God, and he said that God was blindingly bright, extremely powerful, and essential for all life. God, he told me, was the sun.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

[Thirsty Crow]

I don't see how it its... historical materialism is a theory about social/historical influence and change being based on the material forces and relations of production, whereas religion is about metaphysics. I think it's possible to believe that either the universe was created by a God(s) or that it is the dream of Vishnu, and still uphold hismat.

I don't think it is compatible. You're also making a few mistakes in your reasoning.
You're reducing religion to idealist metaphysics and cosmology when it is actually the case that several religious traditions hold that the divine manifests itself in human history and moreover guides it. Such a belief in an active role of the divine in human affairs is completely incompatible with the materialist conception of history. Although of course it is possible for a person to hold both positions, it is nonetheless at the expense of consistency.

[argeiphontes]

^ So historical materialism disavows any social/historical causality that's not strictly about material interests? Or class interests? (I.e. there is only one source of social/historical movement?)

edit: Oh, never mind. Since, by the theory of historical materialism, at least organized religion is a reflection of the society, it's not possible to believe in at least an organized religion and be a noncontradictory historical materialist. I see what you did there. What about animism or something? (Religions that were around during the quasi-mythical period known as "primitive communism"?)

[argeiphontes]

Why would anthropologists disagree?

Because spiritual beliefs seem to stretch into the paleolithic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_religion

I would agree with Tim that organized religion is something different, and I have no doubt that it's served a social/repressive purpose, but even then, that's not the only thing about it. It's just how it was used by elites, but it could be used for another purpose, like Liberation Theology. I think there's a difference between the formal institutions and the thing itself. Natural religions don't have a central authority that guards the Doctrine of the Faith.

[argeiphontes]

Just one more point, since I think my previous posts were a bit unclear. So, given this hierarchy of religious practices from the Wikipedia article on the anthropology of religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology_of_religion):





Individualistic: most basic; simplest. Example: vision quest (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_quest).
Shamanistic: part-time religious practitioner, uses religion to heal, to divine, usually on the behalf of a client. The Tillamook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillamook_%28tribe%29) have four categories of shaman. Examples of shamans: spiritualists, faith healers, palm readers. Religious authority acquired through one's own means.
Communal: elaborate set of beliefs and practices; group of people arranged in clans by lineage, age group, or some religious societies; people take on roles based on knowledge, and ancestral worship.
Ecclesiastical: dominant in agricultural societies and states; are centrally organized and hierarchical in structure, paralleling the organization of states. Typically deprecates competing individualistic and shamanistic cults.



...even the Shamanistic religion would be interpreted as being a shamanic class interest in the gathering of resources by providing shamanic services.

Since the individual is constructed solely by the forces of historical materialism, even individual beliefs must be a reflection of material social forces. Hence, all religion is bogus.

[Thirsty Crow]

^ So historical materialism disavows any social/historical causality that's not strictly about material interests? Or class interests? (I.e. there is only one source of social/historical movement?)

edit: Oh, never mind. Since, by the theory of historical materialism, at least organized religion is a reflection of the society, it's not possible to believe in at least an organized religion and be a noncontradictory historical materialist. I see what you did there. What about animism or something? (Religions that were around during the quasi-mythical period known as "primitive communism"?)
Well, I think that old maxim nothing human is alien is appropriate here, in that HM doesn't disavow any other social-historical causality (though postulating one particular kind of it as the most important and decisive). It does and indeed needs to disavow supernatural causality, and it is precisely because of this that religious belief is incompatible with it (though not all religious belief in my opinion as the crucial criterion is the formative role of the divine in human affairs and history).

[Blake's Baby]

Because spiritual beliefs seem to stretch into the paleolithic...

There is evidence that has been presented by one excavator from one site in the Middle Palaeolithic that has been claimed to show 'religion' (symbolic burial rites among Neanderthals). Needless to say, many other archaeologists disagree that this is the case. The lack of evidence for religious rites in the Middle-Pal I would argue is pretty overwhelming. I think the weight of (non-)evidence is that Neanderthals didn't have 'religion'.

'Religion' (evidenced from burial rites and possibly shamanistic/animistic art etc) starts to appear with modern humans but we only have evidence going back maybe 35,000 years or so. But, at the risk of circular argumentation, I don't think a 'spirit-based' explanation of the world is exactly the same as 'religion' as we're discussing it. If you don't understand magnetism why wouldn't you think that there was a 'spirit' in the rock that wanted to go home to the North Star where it used to live (or whatever)? That doesn't mean you have to set up a parasitic priesthood to intercede with the sky-father.



...

I would agree with Tim that organized religion is something different, and I have no doubt that it's served a social/repressive purpose, but even then, that's not the only thing about it. It's just how it was used by elites, but it could be used for another purpose, like Liberation Theology. I think there's a difference between the formal institutions and the thing itself. Natural religions don't have a central authority that guards the Doctrine of the Faith.

Well, yeah.

[khad]

Of course it is. You just don't want to tell people that because, as there are large numbers of religious people in any society, you want to be able to draw from a wide a support base as possible. At least pat them on the head so that they don't perceive you as an existential threat while you methodically work to dismantle the material conditions for religion in your anarchist/communist society.

Oops, did I just say that out loud?

[argeiphontes]

Well, I think that old maxim nothing human is alien is appropriate here, in that HM doesn't disavow any other social-historical causality (though postulating one particular kind of it as the most important and decisive).


Yeah, but isn't it the case that there are is no "other" causality? I mean that all social-historical causes have a material basis. (I don't mean metaphysically material, but in the limited social/historical sense.)



It does and indeed needs to disavow supernatural causality, and it is precisely because of this that religious belief is incompatible with it (though not all religious belief in my opinion as the crucial criterion is the formative role of the divine in human affairs and history).

Yet, somebody like me might say that there is no such thing as the supernatural. The natural just expands to encompass it. So, if tomorrow somebody proved that a God perturbs the natural order, I would just say that was natural, like I go around perturbing things in my everyday life. The God would just be another natural part of the cosmos, that was currently unexplainable, but some day might be.