Yes, as I said, that is an element of Marxist theory. One that he spends a tiny proportion of his writings on and that one line is all many people know of Marx, which is a pity. — Baden

Although a tiny proportion of Marx's writings may treat of theism, atheism seems obviously to be a central plank of his theory. The masses need to be mobilized and how are the masses to be awakened if they are mesmerized by theism?

I grant that orthodox Marxism, which I think Marxism-Leninism is the canonical case of (with an incredible amount of records to boot), is atheistic. But I want people to know there really are other variants. — Moliere

Yes, I agree and was only addressing orthodox Marxism. Theism, insofar as it promotes the idea of loving thy neighbour as thyself is more at odds with capitalism than with socialism per se.

:cool:

Although a tiny proportion of Marx's writings may treat of theism, atheism seems obviously to be a central plank of his theory. The masses need to be mobilized and how are the masses to be awakened if they are mesmerized by theism — Janus

It's an element of his theory as I've said. An element that you appear, with all due respect, not to be familiar with beyond one line. And the salient debate is over the idea that Marxism is primarily an anti-religious theory rather than a socioeconomic one. That's false. Even the justification for claiming Marxism's unswerving hostility to religion doesn't fare too well when you read beyond the oft-quoted line. Certainly the suggestion he was advocating for violence against the religious isn't supported.

Wheen enjoys showing the inanity of Marx’s detractors, as when they reduce his complex view of religion to unconditional hostility, quoting repeatedly his statement that religion is ​“the opium of the people.” The full quotation, from his 1843 essay, ​“Toward a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right,” shows a more nuanced and sympathetic understanding of the social role of religion: ​“Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, the soul of soulless conditions, it is the opium of the people. — Howard Zinn

https://inthesetimes.com/article/karl-marx-howard-zinn-birthday-capitalism-200

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. — Marx

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm

+

Marx did not object to a spiritual life and thought it was necessary. In the "Wages of Labour" of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx wrote: "To develop in greater spiritual freedom, a people must break their bondage to their bodily needs—they must cease to be the slaves of the body. They must, above all, have time at their disposal for spiritual creative activity and spiritual enjoyment.

There are those who view that the early Christian Church such as that one described in the Acts of the Apostles was an early form of communism and religious socialism. The view is that communism was just Christianity in practice and Jesus as the first communist. This link was highlighted in one of Marx's early writings which stated that "[a]s Christ is the intermediary unto whom man unburdens all his divinity, all his religious bonds, so the state is the mediator unto which he transfers all his Godlessness, all his human liberty" — Wiki

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion

Again, I don't object to pointing out the evils carried out against the religious by those who are nominally atheist or communist. But I do object to the fuzzy thinking, misrepresentation, and caricature going on here.

Probably taking this off-topic. I'll stop now.

Again, I don't object to pointing out the evils carried out against the religious by those who were nominally atheist or communist. But I do object to the fuzzy thinking, misrepresentation, and caricature going on here. — Baden

Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. — Marx

I read what you have quoted as a statement that religion is a poor substitute for "real happiness" and that people must be called upon "to give up a condition that requires illusions" (theism) so that they can "give up their illusions about their condition".

It seems clear that Marx thought that religion entailed illusions that would keep the masses slumbering. He may have felt sympathy for people's illusions, but that does not mean that he did not want them to give them up. It seems clear to me that this is central to his project. If you disagree, fine, but you have offered nothing that brings me to be less certain of my interpretation.

The suggestion that my thinking on this is "fuzzy" a "misrepresentation" or a "caricature" needs some actual argument to support it.

The last line referred to the recent discussion in general. I may have misunderstood you as having something relevant to say with regards to the debate I was pursuing with @Hanover as that's where you interjected.

As in, if you don't disagree with the post I wrote to @Hanover, I don't know why you interjected. If you do, you better quote what you disagree with. Because you don't seem to be saying anything now beyond atheism was part of Marx's theory. We know that, yes.

I may have misunderstood you as having something relevant to say with regards to the debate I was pursuing with Hanover as that's where you interjected. — Baden

I did have something relevant to say which was to disagree with this:

And to call it an "atheistic belief system" is misleading because it suggests that this element is the primary ideological force behind it when its not as it's a socioeconomic theory. — Baden

Despite your protestations I still think it is justifiable to say that communism (Marxism) is an atheistic belief system, even an anti-theistic belief system, which is clearly attested by Marx's statement you quoted above.

It would not be justifiable to refer to it as an atheistic belief system if the sole criterion for counting as such was that it was predominately concerned, and spent most of its discourse, with arguing against theism; that much I would agree with.

Also, I'm not entirely happy with your characterization of my response as an "interjection"; this is an open forum, man.

:fire:

My point was it is "misleading" to posit it as such in this context as doing so suggests the same sense that individual religions are theistic belief systems (the relevant comparison). But the primary ideological force behind individual religions is obviously and clearly theism and this is not the case with Marxism as it relates to atheism. So, if you could call any belief system that has atheism as a significant element "an atheistic belief system" and do so in any context without being misleading, you would be right. I don't accept that's the case but I can agree to disagree.

:up: :cool:

Great, I can go to bed now. Whoopee! :grin:



All yours, bruv. :wink:

To me the question is not whether or not atheism is significant to just theism but instead what is the significance of theism and whatever that significance is will explain what else atheism is significantly relevant or correlational to. You cannot live without either being theistic or atheistic in some degree.

Atheism is significant not just to theism but also to the fundamental questions of life and existence, to metaphysics, epistemology and ethics - because as an atheist there is a fundamental absence of theism to where atheism then begins to question or inquire the unanswered questions of metaphysics that theism claims to have absolute knowledge to. To me, without this inquiry or curiosity we are looking at an agnostic position which is an absence of information and data.

A better word to me is dependent on or necessary for, theism is necessary for atheism in a dualistic sort of relationship but both are significant to more than each other because of the fundamental claims they both (sometimes) make.

But your approach to this is illogical and your reasoning is faulty. — Baden

No, it's not. My comment related to the Chinese government's adherence to atheism and the oppression resulting from it. Your diversion into what the dictates of Marxism are isn't much part of that conversation.

If a question is presented asking for an example of an immoral theistic institution, reference to one that denies the secular principle of a religious inclusion would be cited. The same thing would be referenced if one wanted an example of an atheistic institution.

The argument that you must make, which I disagree with, is that the atheism of China is incidental and insignificant with regard to what makes it oppressive.

This is to say, sometimes when committed atheists convene they oppress the views of others, just like when theists.

And why some Jews hand a string around their neighbourhood. Again with the failure of deontology. — Banno

I don't follow this. The string (eruv) is an orthodoxy, not an attempt to avoid an imperative.

...an orthodoxy, not an attempt to avoid an imperative — Hanover

One man's imperative is another's orthodoxy.

I understand the idea was to create an "enclosure" so as to make it permissible to carry stuff outside, in accord with a sabbatical imperative. the point that it is not just "Christians" who "creatively found a way to do away with the law of the OT, but, even there it required some creativity".

But I don't really give a fuck, beyond a vague bemusement by the ridiculous.

understand the idea was to create an "enclosure" so as to make it permissible to carry stuff outside, in accord with a sabbatical imperative. the point that it is not just "Christians" who "creatively found a way to do away with the law of the OT, but, even there it required some creativity". — Banno

Perhaps it was creative in an effort to make life more livable, or perhaps just the outcome of a hyper-legalistic tradition.

The curiosity of the orthodox is that the faithful increase their religiosity, while the less faithful liberalize.

Like a bad case of OCD, more rules are created over time, which then become standardized and part of the orthodoxy. This law I suppose was derived from the basic notion of being required to rest on the sabbath, which took a whole lot of processing to arrive at rest means don't work means work happens outside in the field means fields are those things without walls means walls are enclosures means enclosures can be made with strings.

You'd have thought "rest" might have meant just sitting down at some point and life wouldn't have involved climbing phone poles with strings.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eruv

Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same. — Siddhartha Gautama (Parable of the Poisoned Arrow)

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. — Pierre-Simon Laplace

Is atheism then a concern of theists only, and atheists concerned only with refuting the theist conception of God? — Ciceronianus

It's a distinction which is highly predictive of a bifurcation in ethical views. Each branch defines its subsequent ethical and political views largely circularly on the reasons for that original theism/atheism distinction.

Don't know much about Cardinal Pell. Apparently, he wanted the priest to perform mass while facing away from the congregation rather than facing it, a position (literally) I would endorse if I cared, first because that's the way it was when I became an altar boy and second because the priest isn't the star of the show.

But as a Cardinal, I assume he wanted everyone else to be a Catholic, of the old school if he was old school. There are things Catholics do as part of being Catholic, just as there are things chess players do as part of playing chess. I don't think it's "good" that I make moves according to the rules of chess, but I ought to do so if I want to play chess.

Somehow the issue slid from whether women should have bodily autonomy to whether one should chew on a wafer. — Banno

Aha! So you think there's a difference between those issues? Perhaps that's because one is an ethical issue and the other is not. I win!

A more interesting question would be whether atheists generally are intent on refuting belief in any and all forms of deity or transcendence. And if so, what motivates them to concern themselves with the beliefs of others. — Janus

I can only speak for myself, but no. I'm not intent on refuting anything. In everyday life I don't give a second thought to God or religion.

It's only when confronted with the religious that I even consider it. And I only care about it if religious beliefs are the driving factor behind some injustice, e.g. mistreating others because of something that their religion (falsely, I believe) claims to be wrong. If someone is homophobic or pro-life because of their religion, and if their religion is wrong (which as an atheist I believe it is), then what they believe matters, and it's important that the victims of their misbeliefs (homosexuals, pregnant women wanting an abortion, etc.) are protected from them.

People might be entitled to their beliefs, but a false belief isn't a justification for doing wrong to others.

:up:

:up:

Is atheism then a concern of theists only, and atheists concerned only with refuting the theist conception of God? — Ciceronianus

Yes.

It's only when confronted with the religious that I even consider it. And I only care about it if religious beliefs are the driving factor behind some injustice, e.g. mistreating others because of something that their religion (falsely, I believe) claims to be wrong. If someone is homophobic or pro-life because of their religion, and if their religion is wrong (which as an atheist I believe it is), then what they believe matters, and it's important that the victims of their misbeliefs (homosexuals, pregnant women wanting an abortion, etc.) are protected from them. — Michael

That's the crux of it. Also, many religious people oppose environmental protections because they 1) think God's in charge of creation and has it covered or 2) the rapture is coming, so why worry?

Also, many religious people oppose environmental protections because they 1) think God's in charge of creation and has it covered or 2) the rapture is coming, so why worry? — Tom Storm

They also oppose those protections because religious people tend to be politically conservative and they don't want restraint on trade that will reduce the size of the economy.

I've always felt that if there were evidence that burning coal was the best way to preserve the environment, conservatives would be arguing that we should burn coal to save the fragile planet. Not that there's not a way to make the same point about liberals in an opposite way, but it seems to me the real reason for many of these positions relates to whose ox is being gored.

Great post. Am I wrong, you seem to be participating more in the actual discussions here on the forum rather than just thinking up new ways to torture us. You've had some really interesting things to say.

:up:

I agree with you about opposing injustices that are religiously motivated (or not religiously motivated for that matter). I don't view religious beliefs in terms of being right or wrong, though. And I don't think that injustices would be justifiable even if it could somehow be proven that they were the will of God.

Cheers, bruv. :up:

. Judaism is an iteration of theism. — Baden

This would mean that Judaism sprang from a belief in God. But not everyone who believes in God makes an ideology out of it
It could be that the tendency to create or follow ideologies has nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in gods, since we see both believers and non believers with and without ideologies.