Has religion been a boon or a bane to mankind?

[uwot]

As I said earlier, religion is essentially a bit of dressing up, pointless dietary restrictions, talking to your invisible friend, an unhealthy obsession with bodily functions, with a bit of cruel and unnecessary genital mutilation thrown in. On the plus side, there's usually a party or two. Religion should not be confused with a belief in some being who created the universe and may or may not give a fuck about it.
If such a creature is responsible for our existence, then ta very much, and if you really want to honour its creation then look at it; do some science.
Religion, to anyone fortunate enough not to be infected with it, is transparently political, always oppressive, censorious and jealous of its simplified version of reality, demanding that people believe things which are demonstrably false.
A love of creation is a boon, and there is no harm attributing it to a creator. Love of religion is a crippling bane; it glorifies stupidity and sanctifies narcissism, because, too often, to be religious is to believe that your god loves you more than anyone else, as only you are kissing its arse the right way. In some, that conviction is so strong that they believe they are justified in hating, torturing and even murdering anyone who disagrees with them.

[attofishpi]

Here Hear!!!

[Harbal]

As I said earlier, religion is essentially a bit of dressing up, pointless dietary restrictions, talking to your invisible friend, an unhealthy obsession with bodily functions, with a bit of cruel and unnecessary genital mutilation thrown in. On the plus side, there's usually a party or two. Religion should not be confused with a belief in some being who created the universe and may or may not give a fuck about it.
If such a creature is responsible for our existence, then ta very much, and if you really want to honour its creation then look at it; do some science.
Religion, to anyone fortunate enough not to be infected with it, is transparently political, always oppressive, censorious and jealous of its simplified version of reality, demanding that people believe things which are demonstrably false.
A love of creation is a boon, and there is no harm attributing it to a creator. Love of religion is a crippling bane; it glorifies stupidity and sanctifies narcissism, because, too often, to be religious is to believe that your god loves you more than anyone else, as only you are kissing its arse the right way. In some, that conviction is so strong that they believe they are justified in hating, torturing and even murdering anyone who disagrees with them.

Nicely put, uwot.

[Immanuel Can]

Picking up on a point made earlier.. perhaps to some degree religion is inevitable given the nature of humanity.

Religion can offer comfort over the realisation of mortality. It can also offer guidance for those who seek guidance. Both of which could be considered to be beneficial.

On the flip side of that, religions tend to take the possible or perhaps the probable and claim that they are true or inevitable. This can result in an oversimplification of the facts and a distortion of the way a person views the world.

All that is true, but could equally be said about any ideology, including all those for which Atheism or agnosticism are the preparatory conditions. Nothing makes "religion" (whatever that means to you) more likely than these others to issue in such oversimplifications and distortions.

After all, does not Atheism claim it is "true"? (If it doesn't, then we can say it doesn't amount to much...or anything, actually: after all, "not-true" is the very condemnation Atheism itself uses to dismiss its opponents, so that seems fair.) And what has been historically more mind-numbingly oversimple and distorted (not to also say lethal) than, say, Communism, which is merely the most obvious and historically nasty example of these Atheism-assuming ideologies?

However, can a post-Atheist ideology offer the kind of "guidance" or "comfort over the realization of mortality" that you identify as a religious upside? It would seem not. For Atheism, if believed, offers no "guidance": being merely the rejection of Theism, as so many of Atheism's friends have pointed out in this very space. Moreover, rather than offering the attributed "comfort," it merely reinforces the impression that we are all just random molecules racing toward eternal blackness: hardly a "comfort," once that it understood.

So if you're right, then in what you say Atheism has none of religion's upside, but every bit of its downside. Interesting.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Have you ever seen a Christian turning the other cheek, or giving to the poor and homeless?

Yes, but the issue is their focus.

How often do we read of Christian leaders speaking passionately and lobbying hard on behalf of the poor, homeless and refugee? Very, very little as compared with furious campaigning and lobbying about Muslims, abortions and gays, which appear to be religious politicians' only concerns.

It's a tragedy that such powerful and wealthy institutions could squander such an opportunity to do significant good, with almost all of their lobbying power wasted on shallow cruelty towards certain vulnerable groups.

it's quite ironic that Kristians like to lobby against Islam whilst talking the talk of charity when it is Muslims that are obligated through their fait the perform Zakat.

[uwot]

After all, does not Atheism claim it is "true"? (If it doesn't, then we can say it doesn't amount to much...or anything, actually: after all, "not-true" is the very condemnation Atheism itself uses to dismiss its opponents, so that seems fair.)

This is one of Mr Can's favourite alternative facts. Atheism does not claim it is true, it simply asserts that it does not believe the claims made by organised religions are true. For that matter, organised religions don't believe the claims of other organised religions either.

And what has been historically more mind-numbingly oversimple and distorted (not to also say lethal) than, say, Communism, which is merely the most obvious and historically nasty example of these Atheism-assuming ideologies?

The vast majority of atheists are as appalled by the lethal excesses of Stalin, Chairman Mao and Pol Pot as the vast majority of theists. As for mind-numbingly oversimple and distorted, look no further than the creation myths associated with any religion.

However, can a post-Atheist ideology offer the kind of "guidance" or "comfort over the realization of mortality" that you identify as a religious upside? It would seem not. For Atheism, if believed, offers no "guidance": being merely the rejection of Theism, as so many of Atheism's friends have pointed out in this very space. Moreover, rather than offering the attributed "comfort," it merely reinforces the impression that we are all just random molecules racing toward eternal blackness: hardly a "comfort," once that it understood.

If it is comfort you are after, consider that we are made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe and subject to the same rules. Whatever our consciousness is, it is part of the universe in the same way that light from stars that exploded millions of years ago still shines. There is nothing in the laws of physics that says we don't have immortal 'souls'. Well, thermodynamics, which implies 'heatdeath' in 15 trillion years, or so. If you are not bored by then, you simply don't know how to live.

So if you're right, then in what you say Atheism has none of religion's upside, but every bit of its downside. Interesting.

What is interesting is how people will believe complete nonsense as the price of a religion's upside.

[Londoner]

After all, does not Atheism claim it is "true"? (If it doesn't, then we can say it doesn't amount to much...or anything, actually: after all, "not-true" is the very condemnation Atheism itself uses to dismiss its opponents, so that seems fair.)

I think atheists would rather say that they do not assert something as "true" (that God exists) when they can see no reason to think that. The reasons theists give that their own views are "true" are not ones they would find acceptable if the subject was anything else but God, so when atheists say atheism is "true" they mean they are being consistent with our normal understanding of that term.

And what has been historically more mind-numbingly oversimple and distorted (not to also say lethal) than, say, Communism, which is merely the most obvious and historically nasty example of these Atheism-assuming ideologies?

You would have to explain what you think communism is.

I do not think atheism is a strong feature of Marxism; there is no argument against God existing. Marxism is simply not interested in metaphysics. Marxists discuss religion, but only as part of the general thesis that all forms of societies mirror economic relationships, the church being one part of society. That idea long predates Marx; the idea that religion needs to be 'purified' of historic and political baggage was always coming up. And of course there have been Christian communists - some would include Jesus and his followers.

[Immanuel Can]

I think atheists would rather say that they do not assert something as "true" (that God exists) when they can see no reason to think that.

That sounds plausible until one asks this question: does that mean they wish to counsel anyone else to (dis)believe what they (dis)believe, or not?

If they do, they are making a positive knowledge claim.

If they do not, they are only making a personal confession of their limitation of knowing.

If it's the former, they owe a rational defence of it. If it's the latter...then it has neither convincing force nor implication for anyone else.

The reasons theists give that their own views are "true" are not ones they would find acceptable if the subject was anything else but God, so when atheists say atheism is "true" they mean they are being consistent with our normal understanding of that term.

Well, needless to say that there is much which Atheists take to be true that is not defensible in anything but the same ways Theists know things...that is, such things as induction, experience, empirical assessment and deduction from premises previously held to be true. Anytime something exceeds human powers -- take the universe itself, for example. It's an epistemological question which methods are appropriate to which sort of subject.

And what has been historically more mind-numbingly oversimple and distorted (not to also say lethal) than, say, Communism, which is merely the most obvious and historically nasty example of these Atheism-assuming ideologies?

You would have to explain what you think communism is.

Let me example it instead; it'll be easier to grasp. Marxist Communism. It was Marx who called the critique of religion "the first of all critiques."

I do not think atheism is a strong feature of Marxism; there is no argument against God existing.

Apparently Marx disagreed, if it was his "first" feature. But you're right that there was no argument supplied for it. He simply said, it's "the opiate of the masses," -- a sort of ad hoc slam one could throw at any ideology one didn't happen to like, but which was devoid of evidence.

...the idea that religion needs to be 'purified' of historic and political baggage was always coming up.

Right. Not a bad idea. Human beings seem prone to accrete political and historical detritus around any belief system they hold.

But ideologies attract it faster if they are vacuous ones like Atheism: for Atheism has nothing positive to offer, ideologically, and so its deficiencies as an ideological orientation become serious immediately. And after that, it doesn't really matter what sort of debris it accumulates: there are no longer any justifiable criteria for cleaning up whatever's accumulating, so it cannot self-correct. That's why the Communism of Stalin and Mao, for example, went so wildly bad; there's no moral corrective in Atheism, except the injunction that if you ever start believing in God you'd better stop.

And of course there have been Christian communists - some would include Jesus and his followers.

Non-ideological. They merely shared property: I suggest that's an inadequate criterion for "Communism." If it weren't then every picnic would be a "Communist" event.

We have no record of why they practiced the sharing of money or property, or for how long; and we have no authorization or injunction to continue the practice, which seems, in any case, to have terminated with the very early Church. By the time of Paul's writing, it was definitely not general practice.

More importantly, there was no ideology a la Marxism behind the practice; it seems a contingent and temporary arrangement in their case. It may well have simply been a provisional practice, and no more.

[Londoner]

That sounds plausible until one asks this question: does that mean they wish to counsel anyone else to (dis)believe what they (dis)believe, or not?

If they do, they are making a positive knowledge claim.

If they do not, they are only making a personal confession of their limitation of knowing.

If it's the former, they owe a rational defence of it. If it's the latter...then it has neither convincing force nor implication for anyone else.

It would be asking them what they mean by 'know', or what conditions are necessary for them to say they 'believe'. Are they applying their own criteria consistently?

If they aren't, then their claim to 'know' or 'believe' wouldn't have any meaning. We could point this out without putting up any criteria of our own, or even thinking that such criteria are possible.

Well, needless to say that there is much which Atheists take to be true that is not defensible in anything but the same ways Theists know things...that is, such things as induction, experience, empirical assessment and deduction from premises previously held to be true. Anytime something exceeds human powers -- take the universe itself, for example. It's an epistemological question which methods are appropriate to which sort of subject.

Yes, I think 'take to be true' is the important bit. We cannot be certain about experience, induction and so on, but we take them to be true in that they are useful. But we do not claim certainty; regarding experience we are well aware that we can be deceived. Regarding 'deduction from premises previously held to be true' we only say that is 'valid', to indicate that any claim of truth is only formal.

A belief in God might also be something we 'take to be true'; a possibility, something we have chosen to assume for a purpose. For example I might suggest that we can only construct a moral system if we assumed there was some ultimate objective standard that we can imagine as God. You say 'It's an epistemological question which methods are appropriate to which sort of subject. If asked why I believed in God I could explain; 'as a hypothetical ultimate moral judge'. If I was then asked 'Do you know he exists, in the same sense you know objects of experience exist?' my answer would be 'No'.

In that case, I do not think an atheist would have any problem with my idea of God. I think the atheists objection is where claims about God cannot be clarified in that way. Where claims to 'knowledge' appear to be unconditional. In that case the atheist objection is that no claims to knowledge, about anything, can be unconditional.

Let me example it instead; it'll be easier to grasp. Marxist Communism. It was Marx who called the critique of religion "the first of all critiques."

Me: I do not think atheism is a strong feature of Marxism; there is no argument against God existing.

Apparently Marx disagreed, if it was his "first" feature. But you're right that there was no argument supplied for it. He simply said, it's "the opiate of the masses," -- a sort of ad hoc slam one could throw at any ideology one didn't happen to like, but which was devoid of evidence.

That critique is against religion. Marx is interested in social institutions, not metaphysics.

He argues that religious institutions are tools through which the ruling classes distract the masses from bettering their condition here on earth, that is why he likens them to opium. He doesn't say 'you must not believe in God'. He may have thought that, but he is not bothered.

I think that his position is like many philosophers of his time; that he would not distinguish religion from the rational. That the role of philosophy was to heal the rift between 'faith' and 'reason', such that they seem to be in opposition to each other.

Consider, Marx still thinks we should be good, that is we ought to be concerned about the injustices he points out, that our object ought to be to make people happier. If Marx was an atheist in the sense of only believing in material objects, where would he derive such values? I think Marx would, like Kant, have probably cited 'the moral law within me'. So Marx believes in spiritual values, but he wants us to distinguish them from superstition and political manipulation.

But ideologies attract it faster if they are vacuous ones like Atheism: for Atheism has nothing positive to offer, ideologically, and so its deficiencies as an ideological orientation become serious immediately...

As I say, I don't think Atheism is an ideology; it is certainly not the same as Marxism.

Me: And of course there have been Christian communists - some would include Jesus and his followers
Non-ideological. They merely shared property: I suggest that's an inadequate criterion for "Communism." If it weren't then every picnic would be a "Communist" event.

We have no record of why they practiced the sharing of money or property, or for how long; and we have no authorization or injunction to continue the practice, which seems, in any case, to have terminated with the very early Church. By the time of Paul's writing, it was definitely not general practice.

More importantly, there was no ideology a la Marxism behind the practice; it seems a contingent and temporary arrangement in their case. It may well have simply been a provisional practice, and no more.

You will be aware that Christians have differed on that subject. Those on the other side would point to plenty of texts where Jesus advises people to give away their property, and how riches obstruct the path to salvation.

The debate was not whether Christians, particularly clergy, should own property. Everyone agreed they should not. The debate was only whether the disciples owned no property at all, or whether although they had no personal property they did have property in common. There were constant attempts at reforms by those who considered their own church had become too worldly; for example in the various orders of monks and friars, famously the Franciscans.

So Communism and Christianity seem eminently compatible regarding property. Yet the Church somehow manages to teach the opposite, which would seem to confirm Marx's idea that the role of organised religion is to make sure Christianity serves the interests of those who own the property

[Immanuel Can]

It would be asking them what they mean by 'know', or what conditions are necessary for them to say they 'believe'. Are they applying their own criteria consistently?

If they aren't, then their claim to 'know' or 'believe' wouldn't have any meaning. We could point this out without putting up any criteria of our own, or even thinking that such criteria are possible.

Oh, quite right. Nicely put.

Yes, does the way they "know" what they "know" amount to something firmer than what they claim a Theist cannot "know," that's the question they have to answer for themselves. It's the Atheist's own epistemological standard the Atheist must meet: not something that has to be imposed by someone else. And can he really say he's more sure -- more "knowing" -- of his (or her) "disbelief" than the Theist is of his or her belief?

Moreover, how would he/she even "know" if that were the case?

As you rightly say,

...We cannot be certain about experience, induction and so on, but we take them to be true in that they are useful.

Or more often, I would say, because they seem "probable" to us. And on occasion, for no other reason than that they seem "attractive" to us. How many Theists believe in a God because they want there to be one? We can only guess. But how many Atheists disbelieve simply because they don't want there to be a God?

In neither case will the wisher necessarily get what he/she wishes for. Certainly the attractiveness of the proposition has nothing to do with its truthfulness, either way.

But we do not claim certainty; regarding experience we are well aware that we can be deceived.

Indeed. That is true of even the most "scientific" facts. When I was in school, I was told that the model of the atom was a sort of collection of spinning globes in a compact, tidy arrangement. When I was older and science knew more, I found out that the nucleus and the protons are separated by vastly more "space" than I imagined.

So the model had changed; does that mean science had lied to me? I suppose in a sense it had: for it had "changed its mind." But what it had really been doing all along -- what it was still doing -- was simply offering me the most plausible explanation to which it had access at the moment. And that's reasonable.

Science is also probabilistic knowing, not ultimate knowing. Yet how often do the "New Atheist" set claim that belief in God is "unscientific" because it is less than ultimately "certain"? Faith is bad, they tell us; faith means believing what you don't "know" in an ultimate way. Yet on that basis or epistemological standard, they couldn't even do science themselves, it would seem.

Regarding 'deduction from premises previously held to be true' we only say that is 'valid', to indicate that any claim of truth is only formal.

Right. Just because something is "held to be true" doesn't guarantee to us that it IS true. The many previous models of the atom were all "held to be true" at times. But what we do is to use our probable knowledge as a basis for the premises we need; we are then rational IF we produce valid syllogisms therefrom.

This is why people can be "reasoning" and yet "reasoning" differently; everything depends on the accuracy of that first premise. After that, a valid syllogism can still be generated, and yet not yield truth.

A belief in God might also be something we 'take to be true'; a possibility, something we have chosen to assume for a purpose.

Well, yes...but again, I'd not overlook the possibility of believing because it's highly plausible to us, not merely because we find it "useful." The "usefulness" explanation implies we're being a bit manipulative -- presuming a legitimate "use" of our own, then forcing our assumptions toward it. If we say "highly plausible," then at least we're willing to accept truths that may not suit our "use" purposes. After all, the truth doesn't revolve around us, and it doesn't promise us it will always be "useful" for projects we conceive. It just promises to be the truth.

...If I was then asked 'Do you know he exists, in the same sense you know objects of experience exist?' my answer would be 'No'.

Mine would be partly 'no'; but I would add the caveat that in some ways I know Him more certainly than I actually know many other things people are happy to concede as existing.

In that case, I do not think an atheist would have any problem with my idea of God. I think the atheists objection is where claims about God cannot be clarified in that way. Where claims to 'knowledge' appear to be unconditional. In that case the atheist objection is that no claims to knowledge, about anything, can be unconditional.

I'd agree with that. But then, the claim of Hard Atheism (i.e. "no Gods") is also far too strong to be justifiable. So we'd have to be talking about a very "soft" kind of Atheist, maybe someone who was content simply to say, "I feel I have to admit to myself that I have no evidence that I know of for God."

Now, if that were all Atheism was content to do, I would find it quite honest and take no exception with it; unfortunately, many Atheists have a tendency to go much stronger, and yet still not to feel they have to justify their skepticism. They want to say, "I don't believe in God, and nobody else ought to either -- at least, nobody reasonable ought to."

And that's just far, far too epistemologically demanding a task for them -- which they have set to themselves. They cannot justify that.

Let me example it instead; it'll be easier to grasp. Marxist Communism. It was Marx who called the critique of religion "the first of all critiques."

...That critique is against religion. Marx is interested in social institutions, not metaphysics.

He argues that religious institutions are tools through which the ruling classes distract the masses from bettering their condition here on earth, that is why he likens them to opium. He doesn't say 'you must not believe in God'. He may have thought that, but he is not bothered.

Marx was disturbed that the "revolution" was not happening in England. That was where he did his speculating, and where he expected it to break out. When it did not, he looked for a scapegoat. He found one in the religiosity of England -- the masses are 'drugged,' so to speak, by religion, he thought.

But in his metaphysics, Marx himself was a curious mixture. His views are, as has often been noted, quasi-messianic, and dependent on unspecified "material forces" that somehow still aim at a social teleology. The whole thing is suffused with religious fervor, despite his distaste for any real "religion." So he was very metaphysically-preoccupied; he just didn't like Christianity and Judaism in particular, as he accused them of inhibiting his utopian state.

Consider, Marx still thinks we should be good, that is we ought to be concerned about the injustices he points out, that our object ought to be to make people happier. If Marx was an atheist in the sense of only believing in material objects, where would he derive such values? I think Marx would, like Kant, have probably cited 'the moral law within me'. So Marx believes in spiritual values, but he wants us to distinguish them from superstition and political manipulation.

You're very kind to him here. I'm not sure his intentions were so nice. His language is that of violence, and his projected revolution was never intended to be bloodless. Historically, we see that when it came, it never was.

Like so many secular ideologues, once he had decided he was "right" and "on the side of history," as they are fond of saying, there was no barbarism that could not be justified in the process of suppressing dissent and producing the utopia. After all, "those people" (i.e. the religious, the dissenters) are "holding us all back," and thus preventing utopia for "all of us." They must all therefore be retrograde, the detritus of progress, and be pushed aside at any cost and in any way necessary.

But ideologies attract it faster if they are vacuous ones like Atheism: for Atheism has nothing positive to offer, ideologically, and so its deficiencies as an ideological orientation become serious immediately...

As I say, I don't think Atheism is an ideology; it is certainly not the same as Marxism.

No, to clarify, it's a kind of pre-ideology, a "clearing of the landscape" by denying the objective grounds of value. But once it's done, Atheism is dead. Being simplistic, and being pure negation, it can offer no further direction. And it's into that vacuum that Atheism has created that all manner of false ideologies (like Marxism) rush in...but this time, with no objective basis for restraint of their worst impulses.

That's what history shows us happens every time: the human race cannot endure the vacuum Atheism leaves. Having then refused to believe in God, they will believe in something else... a government, a scheme, a promise of Heaven-on-Earth, a totalitarian despot, the myth of progress, or whatever. Inevitably, it will be something more self-willed, humanly corruptible and less morally-inhibited than what went before. And they will believe in it with all the passion of the desperate -- for the residual alternative is the pit of total Nihilism. Then the roundups, the gulags and the killing fields begin.

You will be aware that Christians have differed on that subject. Those on the other side would point to plenty of texts where Jesus advises people to give away their property, and how riches obstruct the path to salvation.

Ah, but in every case the injunction to do so was a matter of individual conscience, not social arrangement. That's a key difference: Communism is a social program; the sharing of wealth sponsored by Christ and the apostles was always enjoined upon the individual conscience. "The poor," he said, "you will always have among you." Likewise, the apostles instructed "the rich" to be "generous." Both richness and poorness are there recognized as permanent facts; the only caveat being that those who love God among the rich should be quick to share with those who had less.

Communism is the opposite of individual conscience. In Communism, the State must steal the property of the well-off and redistribute it. No appeal to individual conscience is required there. Force is used, when necessary, and social compulsion is always the chief tool...there is no option for those not willing to share, or whose sense of fair distribution is not the same as that of the State.

... clergy...

I don't believe in those.

So Communism and Christianity seem eminently compatible regarding property. Yet the Church somehow manages to teach the opposite, which would seem to confirm Marx's idea that the role of organized religion is to make sure Christianity serves the interests of those who own the property.

Organized religion is indeed the problem. But it's the "organized," not the "religion" part that is to blame. No sooner do human beings set up an institutional structure, but some begin to exploit it to the detriment of others. That's one lesson history clearly teaches, regardless of whether one is "religious" or not.

[Londoner]

Me:...If I was then asked 'Do you know he exists, in the same sense you know objects of experience exist?' my answer would be 'No'.

Mine would be partly 'no'; but I would add the caveat that in some ways I know Him more certainly than I actually know many other things people are happy to concede as existing.

Personally, I cannot see why an atheist would object to that. It does not claim the sort of certainty that implies '...and everyone else should think the same way as me'.

That is why in discussions about atheism/theism I think we must always be careful of 'straw men'. What sort of knowledge does the theist claim they have of God? There is no single meaning for 'knowledge', a claim to knowledge is always contextual.

Marx was disturbed that the "revolution" was not happening in England. That was where he did his speculating, and where he expected it to break out. When it did not, he looked for a scapegoat. He found one in the religiosity of England -- the masses are 'drugged,' so to speak, by religion, he thought.

The more usual explanation from Marx for the condition of English labour is 'economism'. That although English labour was the best organised in the world, it had no political consciousness. Unions used their power to benefit their members but only within the existing system. (At the time of the manifesto, Germany was seen as the most promising country for revolution.)

The 'opium of the masses' phrase is very early Marx, well before his move to London, the 'Manifesto' and 'Das Kapital'. It is in a response to Hegel, Hegel's work being about an individual's relationship with the state.

But in his metaphysics, Marx himself was a curious mixture. His views are, as has often been noted, quasi-messianic, and dependent on unspecified "material forces" that somehow still aim at a social teleology. The whole thing is suffused with religious fervor, despite his distaste for any real "religion." So he was very metaphysically-preoccupied; he just didn't like Christianity and Judaism in particular, as he accused them of inhibiting his utopian state.

I think that better describes Hegel and others than Marx.

You're very kind to him here. I'm not sure his intentions were so nice. His language is that of violence, and his projected revolution was never intended to be bloodless. Historically, we see that when it came, it never was.

He certainly thought that the ruling classes would not go quietly, that they would react violently to preserve their power. If there was indeed a need for revolution, it was because he had seen that they would not allow peaceful reform. Remember, this was in an age where ordinary people had not even been given the vote.

Like so many secular ideologues, once he had decided he was "right" and "on the side of history," as they are fond of saying, there was no barbarism that could not be justified in the process of suppressing dissent and producing the utopia. After all, "those people" (i.e. the religious, the dissenters) are "holding us all back," and thus preventing utopia for "all of us." They must all therefore be retrograde, the detritus of progress, and be pushed aside at any cost and in any way necessary.

That is always a risk, but one could also see the same tendency in the followers of Jesus, or Mohammed or Jehovah. I do not see it is particularly linked to secular ideologies.

Me: You will be aware that Christians have differed on that subject. Those on the other side would point to plenty of texts where Jesus advises people to give away their property, and how riches obstruct the path to salvation.

Ah, but in every case the injunction to do so was a matter of individual conscience, not social arrangement. That's a key difference: Communism is a social program; the sharing of wealth sponsored by Christ and the apostles was always enjoined upon the individual conscience. "The poor," he said, "you will always have among you." Likewise, the apostles instructed "the rich" to be "generous." Both richness and poorness are there recognized as permanent facts; the only caveat being that those who love God among the rich should be quick to share with those who had less.

Communism is the opposite of individual conscience. In Communism, the State must steal the property of the well-off and redistribute it. No appeal to individual conscience is required there. Force is used, when necessary, and social compulsion is always the chief tool...there is no option for those not willing to share, or whose sense of fair distribution is not the same as that of the State.

To say the state must 'steal' the property of the well-off is to assume that the well-off are that way because that is somehow the natural order of things. But a Marxist would say that the well-off are only that way because they have configured the state to suit themselves.

Once it would have been considered immoral to 'steal' somebody's slave. Yet now we consider that owning a slave is what is immoral. Why aren't all the power relationships within a society not like slavery, such that we can change them if we choose to?

Regarding Christianity, to say that not accumulating wealth is 'a matter of conscience' is not to say it is voluntary. If you do claim to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus, then you are obliged to do it. Otherwise it would be like saying; 'I believe in an un-Christian Christianity!'. Christians might not think they should force their religion on others, but that is not the issue. What we were discussing was whether communism was incompatible with Christianity. Would it be possible to have a Christian society that did not have private property, but only property held in common? I cannot see why not; Christians have certainly tried to create such societies.

That Marxists might do the equivalent of forcing their religion on others was a question rather framed as 'Would non-communist nations allow communism (or any radical revolution) to succeed in a particular country? Wouldn't they need to crush it to stop the 'infection' spreading to their own workers?' In Marx there is a lot of pragmatic discussion of this, taking examples from history; peasant's revolts, the French Revolution, the 1848 risings, the Paris Commune... I think we must admit that there is a strong argument to conclude that they wouldn't. Indeed, that was often the fate of communistic Christian communities; otherwise rival states (and churches) would put aside their normal differences to crush them.

[Immanuel Can]

Personally, I cannot see why an atheist would object to that. It does not claim the sort of certainty that implies '...and everyone else should think the same way as me'.

It makes you wonder why guys like Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are so keen to do it. But they're not unusual.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks," said Hamlet's mother. I often get the feeling that the person they're trying hardest to convince is themselves. That seems to have been Hitchens' situation. I wonder how many others do likewise.

What sort of knowledge does the theist claim they have of God? There is no single meaning for 'knowledge', a claim to knowledge is always contextual.

No, you're right: there are multiple sorts of "knowledge." But it makes you wonder which the Atheist is claiming the Theist "cannot have."

I think that better describes Hegel and others than Marx.

Oh no. Hegel was much more overt in his interest in spirituality than that.

He certainly thought that the ruling classes would not go quietly, that they would react violently to preserve their power. If there was indeed a need for revolution, it was because he had seen that they would not allow peaceful reform. Remember, this was in an age where ordinary people had not even been given the vote.

I hadn't forgotten that.

But, "He started it first!" sounds to me like a wholly inadequate excuse for the Russian Revolution, either way.

Like so many secular ideologues, once he had decided he was "right" and "on the side of history," as they are fond of saying, there was no barbarism that could not be justified in the process of suppressing dissent and producing the utopia. After all, "those people" (i.e. the religious, the dissenters) are "holding us all back," and thus preventing utopia for "all of us." They must all therefore be retrograde, the detritus of progress, and be pushed aside at any cost and in any way necessary.

That is always a risk, but one could also see the same tendency in the followers of Jesus, or Mohammed or Jehovah. I do not see it is particularly linked to secular ideologies.

Well, except that the religious zealot is restricted in some ways. He cannot happily go beyond the moral limits of his religion. Now I agree, especially in cases like Islam, that those limits may not be much; but they're certainly a lot more restrictive than the complete absence of moral restraint produced by Atheism. So if you have to choose to be persecuted by someone, choose somebody that has some kind of defensible conscience left, based on supposed concrete realities. Atheism denies the objective reference of all moral precepts: any conscience left after that is built on air.

To say the state must 'steal' the property of the well-off is to assume that the well-off are that way because that is somehow the natural order of things.

Actually, it's not. It's just to say that's how things are. No more. Not that it's "right" or "necessary" or even "natural."

But a Marxist would say that the well-off are only that way because they have configured the state to suit themselves.

Which would be transparently false. Some people, we must at least admit, did actually work for what they earned. Not everybody is a shill just because they succeeded. And success does not always depend on the State. If it did, mankind would never have become successful without the State.

Regarding Christianity, to say that not accumulating wealth is 'a matter of conscience' is not to say it is voluntary. If you do claim to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus, then you are obliged to do it.

Sorry...to do...what? Do "it," you say?

I'm guessing you mean "not accumulate wealth." But actually, the accumulation of wealth is not interdicted; it's the failure to be charitable with that wealth that is decried. Uneven distribution is just a neutral fact, like people having different heights, weights, etc. It's when people are suffering and others are not alleviating that, even though they have the means to...that's a problem. But uneven distribution...again, that's just how things work out sometimes. Not all the reasons for that are sinister.

Would it be possible to have a Christian society that did not have private property, but only property held in common? I cannot see why not; Christians have certainly tried to create such societies.

It's misguided if it's not voluntary. The incentive for sharing wealth has to come from the moral convictions of the giver, not from the power of the taker. And when the takers use the powers of the State, the moral situation has definitely reversed. If the wealth was morally and legitimately acquired, to use the State to enforce some different balance is nothing but covetousness and institutionalized theft. It's not justice at all.

... communistic Christian communities...

Did you have one in mind?

[Londoner]

But, "He started it first!" sounds to me like a wholly inadequate excuse for the Russian Revolution, either way.

I don't think it can be denied in that the Czarist state power and wealth was concentrated in the hands of a few people, and that attempt at peaceful reform had been put down by force. Isn't that the excuse for the Russian revolution? If one believed:

The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
God made them high and lowly,
And ordered their estate.

then all social change is wrong. Also if one was a pacifist, but it wasn't as if the Czar (despite claiming to be a Christian) was a pacifist either.

Well, except that the religious zealot is restricted in some ways. He cannot happily go beyond the moral limits of his religion. Now I agree, especially in cases like Islam, that those limits may not be much; but they're certainly a lot more restrictive than the complete absence of moral restraint produced by Atheism. So if you have to choose to be persecuted by someone, choose somebody that has some kind of defensible conscience left, based on supposed concrete realities. Atheism denies the objective reference of all moral precepts: any conscience left after that is built on air.

The moral precepts of religion are not objective either. You criticise Islam, yet you cannot point to any objective fact to prove that you are right and Islam is wrong. You can point to one set of dogma, the Muslim can point to another. You can point to scripture, so can the Muslim.

You can only claim that religion has more authority than any other belief system if you claim that your own belief is objectively true, that Muslims and Communists and atheists must (if they claim to be rational) agree with you. But we established earlier that theism, including your own version, does not make that claim.

Me: To say the state must 'steal' the property of the well-off is to assume that the well-off are that way because that is somehow the natural order of things.

Actually, it's not. It's just to say that's how things are. No more. Not that it's "right" or "necessary" or even "natural."

Then why use the word 'steal'?

Me: But a Marxist would say that the well-off are only that way because they have configured the state to suit themselves.
Which would be transparently false. Some people, we must at least admit, did actually work for what they earned. Not everybody is a shill just because they succeeded. And success does not always depend on the State. If it did, mankind would never have become successful without the State.

I would suggest that it would be difficult to achieve any material success if we all acted as individuals, everyone against their neighbour. We are a social animal, we work through co-operation. That being the case, the co-operation can be either intended to benefit everyone, or just a sub-group.

I do not see how we can argue it is 'transparently false' to point out that frequently a sub group gets to control most of the wealth, and that this is by no means linked to how much work they do. I do not think the small numbers of Russian aristocrats worked harder than the vast numbers who were peasants.

I'm guessing you mean "not accumulate wealth." But actually, the accumulation of wealth is not interdicted; it's the failure to be charitable with that wealth that is decried. Uneven distribution is just a neutral fact, like people having different heights, weights, etc. It's when people are suffering and others are not alleviating that, even though they have the means to...that's a problem. But uneven distribution...again, that's just how things work out sometimes. Not all the reasons for that are sinister.

If you are charitable with your wealth then you will not be able to accumulate it. Jesus seems to be rather uncompromising on that point:

Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

Uneven distribution of wealth is not 'just how things work out sometimes'. We have the power to change it.

Me: Would it be possible to have a Christian society that did not have private property, but only property held in common? I cannot see why not; Christians have certainly tried to create such societies.

It's misguided if it's not voluntary. The incentive for sharing wealth has to come from the moral convictions of the giver, not from the power of the taker. And when the takers use the powers of the State, the moral situation has definitely reversed. If the wealth was morally and legitimately acquired, to use the State to enforce some different balance is nothing but covetousness and institutionalized theft. It's not justice at all.

Above you argued that ' the religious zealot is restricted in some ways. He cannot happily go beyond the moral limits of his religion'. If that was true, surely it goes both ways. He cannot do things which he believes are not moral, but he must do things which he believes are moral.

As a Christian we would have volunteered; we would have those moral convictions. I do not see how we could say the state could be said to be acting immorally if it was doing the things we consider moral. But whether the state we lived in was communist or anything else, the duty of the individual Christian would be to behave like a communist.

Your argument keeps returning to the idea that communism is wrong to redistribute wealth 'If the wealth was morally and legitimately acquired'. But Jesus does not ask the wealthy young man how he obtained his wealth before telling him he should give it away.

Nor can we link morally and legitimately in that way; I gave the example of slavery earlier. Can a Christian own slaves? If you are a slave and slavery is legal, would it be morally wrong for you to resent your condition, or run away from your master? When slavery was abolished, would we have said that was 'nothing but covetousness and institutionalized theft. It's not justice at all'. If not, if the state can abolish slavery even though this interfered with existing property rights, why can't it change other things?

... communistic Christian communities.
Did you have one in mind?

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need. (Acts 4)

I would say that the monastic and mendicant orders attempted to realise this very directly, and all Christian institutions hold to it in theory; the Pope owns no personal property. Even at its most fiercely anti-communist, although the Papacy argued that the right to have private property is essential to individual freedom, private property is still subordinated to the common good, such that governments have a right to enact re-distributive policies, including direct expropriation if necessary.

[A_Seagull]

As I said earlier, religion is essentially a bit of dressing up, pointless dietary restrictions, talking to your invisible friend, an unhealthy obsession with bodily functions, with a bit of cruel and unnecessary genital mutilation thrown in. On the plus side, there's usually a party or two. Religion should not be confused with a belief in some being who created the universe and may or may not give a fuck about it.
If such a creature is responsible for our existence, then ta very much, and if you really want to honour its creation then look at it; do some science.
Religion, to anyone fortunate enough not to be infected with it, is transparently political, always oppressive, censorious and jealous of its simplified version of reality, demanding that people believe things which are demonstrably false.
A love of creation is a boon, and there is no harm attributing it to a creator. Love of religion is a crippling bane; it glorifies stupidity and sanctifies narcissism, because, too often, to be religious is to believe that your god loves you more than anyone else, as only you are kissing its arse the right way. In some, that conviction is so strong that they believe they are justified in hating, torturing and even murdering anyone who disagrees with them.

I think what you have written here is a philosophical perspective of religion. But the OP refers more to a pragmatic view of religion. (The philosophy of pragmatism if you like.)

There may well be many people who benefit from the leadership and guidance that religion can provide. The world is a mysterious and complex place and for many non-philosophers it is too hard to determine for themselves what paths their lives 'should' take. Religion provides this guidance. Even if people are encouraged to believe falsehoods, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Non-religious guidance of this nature seems to be very limited. Is it inevitable that such social guidance must take a religious form?

[uwot]

I think what you have written here is a philosophical perspective of religion.

That's hardly a crime on a philosophy forum.

But the OP refers more to a pragmatic view of religion. (The philosophy of pragmatism if you like.)

Fair enough.

There may well be many people who benefit from the leadership and guidance that religion can provide.

No doubt. Rules have a pragmatic value.

The world is a mysterious and complex place and for many non-philosophers...

Trust me; the same is true of philosopher-philosophers.

...it is too hard to determine for themselves what paths their lives 'should' take. Religion provides this guidance. Even if people are encouraged to believe falsehoods, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

Well, except where falsehoods impede learning, maintain control or discriminate against non-believers.

Non-religious guidance of this nature seems to be very limited. Is it inevitable that such social guidance must take a religious form?

Must we believe is some god to behave as socially responsible beings? I would say no.