Is Reason the "God" for all true Commies?

[ItalianCommie]

Dear Comrades,

I was wondering the other day, could Reason a God for all true communists?

I thought positive. I believe in the light of Reason. Heck, isn't Marxism based on that? A well reasoned and well thought-through process of thinking?

Is Reason onnipotent? No, but at least we all know it exists...

Surely better than illuding yourself in believing in something that doesn't exist...

Opinions please...

[James]

I think you are either going to be ignored or slated.

[LSD]

I think this may be a language issue, but "reason" cannot be a "God".

One should not "worship" reason any more than one should "worship" "Jesus", and, indeed, a concept such as reason is incapable of being "divine" in any reasonable sense of the word.

But if your meaning is that reason is essential and fundamental to communism, then you are absolutely correct.

Marxism, communim, historical materialism, are all based on the premise of a rational and objective world-view. This is why superstition and "faith" have no place within them.

As communists, we have no need for "Gods", not even a "God of reason".

We prefer to see the world as it is.

[commiecrusader]

There is no deity for true communism, and I don't feel we should try to delude people by inventing a new God that suits our purpose. This has been happening for too long now. Look at the Bible. Doing this would make us no better than the self-deluding religions we seek to replace.

[redstar2000]

The French revolutionaries of the late 18th century gave it a try.

Some cathedrals were converted into "Temples of Reason". I suppose the idea was that people who habitually went to church should have "reason" preached to them instead of superstition.

A well-meaning idea...but it just didn't work out. :(

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[ItalianCommie]

I know that 18th century Illuminism often embraced that idea, and I know it failed to achieve a lasting effect. I don't consider reason a God, infact.


I think you're either going to be ignored or slated.

I was just asking to see what answers I would receive from true Marxists like you. I post and read to revleft.com in order to learn something and bolster my arguments against cappies. I'm only sixteen, and although I know more than most, I still have much to learn.

[Clarksist]

I suppose for some communists reason can be the core of their beliefs and their practices.

But of course, reason is a tricky word.

Do you mean reason as in the rationalist sense of the word? If so, then fuck no, at least for me.

[Delirium]

Belief in any kind of god requires faith, and faith is the anti-reason.

so... no

[James]

ah well, just to set the record clear, i'm not a marxist.
You may find rousseau interesting, in the social contract he advocates a "civic religion".

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 3 2006, 01:24 AM
Belief in any kind of god requires faith, and faith is the anti-reason.

so... no
What about religious claims that god can be known a-priori? Where does this leave god and/or reason?

[Delirium]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution+Feb 3 2006, 03:27 PM--> (Hegemonicretribution @ Feb 3 2006, 03:27 PM)
Datura [email protected] 3 2006, 01:24 AM
Belief in any kind of god requires faith, and faith is the anti-reason.

so... no
What about religious claims that god can be known a-priori? Where does this leave god and/or reason? [/b]
I dont see how god can be known a-priori. I certainly dont instintivly know of god. Concepts of god are different all of the world also, so how could they be a priori?

Religious visions dont count either. :lol:

[ItalianCommie]

How can God be known of a-priori? I don't see how. It's ridiculous.

I think religion started when man started to ask himself why he exists, what moves the sun and that kind of stuff. It's a pretty unreal childlike explanation, isn't it? True Reason, wether you like it or not, tells us that a god cannot exist, that we are only the result of chemical and physical reactions, that religion is a chain that humanity must be rid of. Don't you agree that religious people aren't reasonable? :lol:

I believe Reason can explain almost anything, if a person has it.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Datura [email protected] 3 2006, 03:43 PM
I dont see how god can be known a-priori. I certainly dont instintivly know of god. Concepts of god are different all of the world also, so how could they be a priori?


There are arguments that hold god as a necessary concept as part of our understanding of existence. There are also variations stemming from the various conceptions of god. For examle Acquinas may have made a reasonable attemt at the cosmological argument, and it is different from Allam's version, but fundamentally they are similar.

I posted in a topic recently about how reconcilliation of these arguments with the various attributes of "god" (depending on the church) was never seen as important. The church used the concept of god as a means of social control, and largely exist within their own dogma. The "god" allegedly (although not at all in my oppinion) "proven" by these arguments is far removed from that of the churches. The key philosophers of various religions deal with this side of things, whether or not "god" hates queers, black people, women, non-believers etc is something purely down to the church.

There are no serious arguments that I have come across yet that deal with the personified version of god that we generally think of. This is why I try and aim attacks at the god of the philosophers. I can see no defence of many versions of god, but if I can attack the version wherethere is actually a defense then I become closer to falsifying all religion.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:58 PM
True Reason, wether you like it or not, tells us that a god cannot exist, that we are only the result of chemical and physical reactions, that religion is a chain that humanity must be rid of.





True, or pure reason I like, however most people feel they possess it, and they still get different answers ;). I would like to see you explain conscience in terms of physical and checmical reactions then :D, if what you claim is true.

What we have if a superior sytem of understanding in science than religion ever provided. I also agree we should rid ourselves of religion, although I think that this is something that stems from factors outside of/along with my reason alone.


Don't you agree that religious people aren't reasonable? :lol:
In the most part yes, although I see this in atheists as well. It is the one or two more reasonable religious people I take issue with, once they are dismissed then all are.

Unfortunately most atheists would rather make themselves look good by only focusing on the most extreme, and poor examples of religion to reinforce their position. If we were being truly scientific, and reasonable our issue would be with the exceptions to the rule. It is the exceptions that cause us problems, and whilst spreading a prefered doctrine over that of a church by means of propoganda is useful, it is not a definite end that can come of this.


I believe Reason can explain almost anything, if a person has it.
You obviously don't then? :lol: Belief in reason? Sorry it cracks me up. If you possess reason use it to, as you said you can, prove that reason can prove anything :D

[Delirium]

Yeah i understand the difference between 'god' and 'God'. But i don't get how knowledge of god can claimed to be a priori.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution
Unfortunately most atheists would rather make themselves look good by only focusing on the most extreme, and poor examples of religion to reinforce their position.

What is "poor" about the "extreme" examples?

Suppose an indignant Nazi maintained that "most Nazis were nice people" and that only a "few extremists" actually killed Jews...would anyone fall for that?

Murdering the "racially inferior" was inherent in Nazi ideology.

As is murdering the heretic, the infidel, and the unbeliever in religious ideologies.

They all did it and they're still doing it wherever they can get away with it.

Why should we "tolerate" that?

No sensible person has any doubts about what the neo-Nazis would do if they had the chance.

And no sensible person has any "respect" for "Nazi beliefs" or thinks that we should "tolerate" them.

No sensible person is "outraged" if neo-Nazis are repressed, even forcibly.

And yet, when you get right down to it, the "world's great religions" have a far longer and far bloodier track record than the Nazis.

Indeed, the comparison could be extended further. I think you could make a reasonable argument that had the Nazis gone on to win World War II, Nazism would have evolved into a new monotheistic religion.

Mein Kampf would have become a "holy book". :o

True, objective material conditions would not have permitted Nazi monotheism to endure for any significant period of time...but we surely would have seen a century or so of some pretty bad shit.

When it comes to religion, the worst examples are precisely the most revealing!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/223.gif

[Nathe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 03:58 PM
How can God be known of a-priori? I don't see how. It's ridiculous.
what about the ontological argument

1) if god exists then god would be the greatest thing that ever existed
2) if god didnt exist then god could be greater by existing
therefore: god exists

there are different forms of the argument but thats the basis of it. god 'proven' by pure reason. (weather or not god actually is proven depends on your definition of god)

now dont mistake me for some christian who refuses to accept reason... im just looking at all the angles. i am agnostic.

and just for the sake of argument, whats so 'unreasonable' about the existence of an ultimate reality, or god? just because something leaves no evidence dosent mean it dosent exist. i see no evidence that my computer screen is constantly refreshing at something around 50 times a second, but it still does it. i find it more reasonable that there is some sort of force or consciousness holding reality together. and alot of scientists believed in god too, einstein for one.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 09:59 AM
What is "poor" about the "extreme" examples?

Suppose an indignant Nazi maintained that "most Nazis were nice people" and that only a "few extremists" actually killed Jews...would anyone fall for that?

Murdering the "racially inferior" was inherent in Nazi ideology.

I said they are useful, I agree with you in that respect, but they cannot be conclusive.


As is murdering the heretic, the infidel, and the unbeliever in religious ideologies.
You cannot show this to be true of the small "g" god. If you can then please show how it is inherent by means of a causal link. I will not replace one system of faith (religion) with that of faith in another person's (your's).


They all did it and they're still doing it wherever they can get away with it.
You see this is where you are wrong. This is something down to the manipulation of belief by a church. Also not all are doing this, and not all ever have. You seem to have an almost Eurocentric view of religion with a few American "religious right" thrown in. This does not constitute the varied nature of belief for 6billion people. I use the word belief, because whilst we don't all believe in "god" we do all believe something when knowledge isn't an option.


Why should we "tolerate" that?
I don't want to get into this, and I am a fan of your style of argument, but this does nothing. The influenced questions, the sensationalised examples, the repitition of them until they serve as every conceivable answer...this is all propoganda. I agree with it all, but I am interested in attacking beliefs that our outside of what you are attacking.

You may hit it in a roundabout way, because of association, I would rather attack the few versions of "religion" not falling under your umbrella view for what they are.

If you take out the most acceptable, and best versions of religion then you succeed in taking them all out. This doesn't work the other way around, at least in a way that is benificial.


And yet, when you get right down to it, the "world's great religions" have a far longer and far bloodier track record than the Nazis.
They are also completely seperate from what I was talking about.


When it comes to religion, the worst examples are precisely the most revealing!

No, they serve the purpose of millitant atheists. They are an example of what "can happen." Then again people said the same about the USSR. Our defense is that this was never communist, the religious defense is that such behaviour was never religious.

What can you say to that except "Of course it was religious" if you do then the same argument could be used against communism, but essentially it misses the point. The terminology isn't what is important, it was it is supposed to be representing. Therefore some one that holds god as a necessary element for existance, but takes no action as a result, could not be fairly associated with the same things as those that fought in the crusades, even if they are "religious."

You can appeal to people's reason to see why the crusades were evil, but not why a non-practicing believer is. Until you deal with cases of the latter variety then you haven't conclusively shown anything. How many white swans? ;)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 11:06 AM
and alot of scientists believed in god too, einstein for one.
Nice summary of the ontological argument by the way.

Einstein was a deist. "Religious" seems to imply something else around here.

[Nathe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 05:08 PM
Nice summary of the ontological argument by the way.

Einstein was a deist. "Religious" seems to imply something else around here.
thanks. :)

thats true, about "religious"

its sad that the word 'god' instantly brings on 'christianity' or 'islam' and mainstream religion. whereas theres a whole philosophical side to it that steers more on pure reason and away from mainstream religion. thats where deism, and serious and logical thinking go on. people are looking at too many things as black and white.

on the origonal topic, you could say that reason and logic is to communism, as 'god' is to christianity. but you couldnt say that 'reson and logic' is a "god" as such.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 08:13 AM
thats true, about "religious"

its sad that the word 'god' instantly brings on 'christianity' or 'islam' and mainstream religion. whereas theres a whole philosophical side to it that steers more on pure reason and away from mainstream religion. thats where deism, and serious and logical thinking go on. people are looking at too many things as black and white.

You see this is my stance, if I can destyroy these foundations then I can dismiss all religion. However if I only deal with extreme examlpes of the misuse (this term is subjective, and all anything reactionary could fall under this) of religion I do no such thing. I then make coments on human manipulation of a concept, not the concept itself. Just as reference to totalitarian, state capitalist regimes resulting from the misuse of communist ideas is a reflection on human misuse of a concept, not the actual concept.

All aspects (including reactionary) of religion rely upon the philosophical foundations. The philosophical foundations do not rely upon the reactionary element of religion, as many seem to imply.

I am quite happy to define religion as something necessarily reactionary, and for this to be an extension of a mere Eurocentric view, however there are so many obscure cases that would require arguing the toss that it is not wirth the effort. I will take religion for what it is, and reaction for what it is. I see corellation, but not causation as of yet.

[ItalianCommie]

That ontological argument is total crap. Very simplistic. You can say the same thing for almost any mythical thing or creature.

Sorry about that crappy "believe" term. I should have said "I think that". My bad. ;)

What do you think about Bakunin's opinion: "If God truly existed, then we should be rid of him."

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 10:21 PM
That ontological argument is total crap. Very simplistic. You can say the same thing for almost any mythical thing or creature.




I agree, although do you not think there are further responses to what you have suggested? What you are refering to by saying that it could apply to anything is Ganillo's Island. He uses an Island to ridicule the absurdity of such an argument, and there is a reasonable response to this, although this is getting off topic. Kant's response about existence not being a redicate is much more successful.

I have not found a decisive argument for god, but there are some that are at least valid. This is why I am an athiest, but one that spends time addressing religious defences, rather than likening all religion to one extreme example.


Sorry about that crappy "believe" term. I should have said "I think that". My bad. ;)
Still you claimed that you could explain almost anything, I would like you to exlpain your claim, unless of course you don't possess reason :P In which case your claim is not all that valid :lol:

I'm sorry, I realise that I am bullying a bit here, but it is only by questioning definite assumptions and claims that we learn (or at least I do). "I think that" equates almost to a justified belief, belief without justification is useless.


What do you think about Bakunin's opinion: "If God truly existed, then we should be rid of him."
I normally reference Nietzsche, "If there was a god, then how could you endure not to be one?" Essentially saying something similar. Even a benevolant, loving god I would seek to abolish. There can be no classes, be this proletariat and bourgeois, or men and god.