Militant Atheism

[Nakosis]

I think you've been making a number of assumptions in this thread.

Actually I've been hoping you'll state your position on whether you see a belief in God is good or bad for folks. If your're really neutral then I don't understand what your debate is about.

Rejecting an argument does not necessarily mean rejecting the argument's conclusion. I can reject the claim "the sky is blue because pixies paint it that way" without rejecting "the sky is blue."

You're providing examples, this isn't saying anything about your position regarding the belief in God.

When I encounter a bad argument for a god, all I can say in response is "if this god exists, it isn't for the reasons that this guy is claiming." I can only out-and-out reject a god when there's reason to think that a god can't exist... e.g. when a god-concept is internally contradictory or implies that things in the world would be a particular way when they're demonstrably not.
If you don't understand a claim, what grounds would you have to reject it? What mistake in logic in an argument can you point to if you don't know what logic it purports to use?
It's perfectly valid not to accept an argument that hasn't been expressed in a way you don't understand. It isn't valid to reject it.

Yes a person can do any number of random things you might imagine. What people actually do is much more interesting.

Don't try to speak for me.

I'm actually hoping at some point you'll speak for yourself instead of providing example of what folks might do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually I've been hoping you'll state your position on whether you see a belief in God is good or bad for folks. If your're really neutral then I don't understand what your debate is about.

Why do you want this? How is it relevant to the discussion?

You're providing examples, this isn't saying anything about your position regarding the belief in God.

It isn't meant to.

Yes a person can do any number of random things you might imagine. What people actually do is much more interesting.

Not sure what this is supposed to mean.

I'm actually hoping at some point you'll speak for yourself instead of providing example of what folks might do.

Again: why?

 

[Laika]

You were using three things interchangeably when they are not the same. I'm surprised Laika doesn't know the difference, but perhaps he learned the Soviet version of Marxism first.

I'm trying to stay out of this thread as I not sure much good will come of it; if by three things you mean atheism,marxism and marxism-leninism I'll give you a low-down.

> Marx based his materialism on the Atheism of Feuerbach who wrote The Essence of Christianity and said man created god. Consequently, Marxism is atheist and represents a particular interpretation of materialist-atheism. There is a debate about breaks in continuity and when Marx became a "Marxist" and stopped being a "left hegelian". the latest this falls is in 1845 with The German Ideology where Marx sets out the basic ideas for a "materialist conception of history". The "materialist conception of history" is atheist.

> Whilst Marx came up with the original ideas, they were worked out more systematically by later thinkers during the period of the Second International (1889-1916). There were differences between Marx and Engels views and it led to conflicting interpretations of Marxist thought. There was conflict over whether Marxism applied only to Social Science or included Natural Science because Engels wrote The Dialectics of Nature. Russian Marxism, essentially started with Plekanhov, took the view that Marxism was a "worldview" applying to both natural and social sciences. This view was inherited by Lenin, Stalin and Soviet Marxism.

The latter view, that marxism only applied to social science is the basis for Western Marxism, such as the Frankfurt School. This is the Marxism that still survives today and occassionally appears in sociology textbooks. It is much less radical than it's russian counter-part which accepts "dialectical materialism" (the marxist philosophy of nature) in addition to "historical materialism" (marxist philosophy of society/history). Without dialectical materialism, the arguments for the necessity of class struggle and the class nature of the state are much weaker. So western marxism is compatable with capitalism and flexible/concilatory or "revisionist" as the soviets would call it.

> Marxism and Marxism-Leninism starts with Stalin. Lenin considered himself a "marxist" and it wasn't until after his death (and it would have been much to his disgust) that people started using the term "Leninist". In the 1930's Stalin basically codified marxist ideology into a single, easy to learn, easy to repeat set of beliefs. certian varients of marxism that didn't fit in this orthodoxy were rejected. By the Third International (1919-1943) of communist parties, this varient of marxism spread through-out the world as "Marxism-Leninism". Maoism is an intellectual cousin and borrows the same philosophy ("dialectical materialism") despite having political differences in placing the emphasis of the revolution on the peasantry rather than the working class/proletariat.

However, the Marxist-Leninist ideology derived its cliam of authority to the "genuis" of Lenin as the founder of the russian bolsheviks and the leader of the October revolution in Russia. Lenin's works were re-interpreted over and over again as if it were a sacred text by sucessive parties, governments and leaders. sometimes it could be interpreted for democratic or totalitatrain ideas, but also can be debated over the scope of market and planned economies in a "socialist" system (socialism being the 'lower'stage of communism). Even now, the People's Republic of China will probably still be using some of Lenin's ideas on the New Economic Policy to justify their pro-market position in much the same way Gorbachev also appealed to lenin to justify pro-market reforms at the end of the Soviet era. The scope of debates that can take place in this frame work (and it's pretty big) is pretty much "Marxism-Leninism".

It doesn't mean that a communist or Marxist believes as Marx and Engels did, that the dialectic materialism "does not play dice". Especially we could take Lenin and the way he skips through necessary phases of development toward communism and destroys some "fundamentals" of Marx in the process.

Ironically, you're quoting Einstein's remark that "god doesn't play dice". This was also the Soviet view that nature was governed by natural laws and was determined (edit: minus the god part obviously ). Einstein made that remark regarding the indeterminism of quantum mechanics. The Soviets had serious headaches over quantum mechanics because of it's indeterminism as- they said- it attributed "free will" to the atom and gave scope to interpetations of physics that conflicted with dialectical materialism and party ideology.

Lenin (or Trotsky depending on your view) actually compressed the stages of revolution, meaning that it was the proletariat/working class who was going to perform the role of making a "bourgeois/capitalist" revolution because the bourgeoisie was too weak in Russia to do it on it's own. The Proletariat would of course not stop here and it was why Lenin argued for a "proletarian/socialist" revolution.

(On the subject of atheism, one notable exception to the communist/marxis-atheist rule is "Islamic Marxism" which developed central asia in the 1920's and has some intellectual influences on the current Islamist movement. they are sort like Islamic Leninists in some respects with their attitude towards political organisation and the state. religious varients of Marxism are the exception because of dialectical materialism which is inherently atheist).

To an outsider, Dialectical materialism is insane. But really, it is a systematic attempt to eliminate "god" from the account of the universe, along with anything suggesting that consciousness could be the cause of the universe including indeterminis, free will, etc. it earned Orwell's ridicule in 1984 as "doublethink" and not without justification because of how often it was abused. e.g. Stalin interpreted Engels statement that the state would "wither away" under Communism to include expanding it until it controlled everything and so the state and society became identical. in terms of dialectics it's brilliant, but politically, its absolutely terrifying.

 

[Nakosis]

Why do you want this? How is it relevant to the discussion?
It isn't meant to.
Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
Again: why?

There are a number of atheists who feel theism as a means of determination is not a good thing. So really, what is the justification for the "militant" atheist. Folks like Dawkins and Harris who take a position which is very critical towards religion.

If you have an opinion on this great, if not, that's ok to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are a number of atheists who feel theism as a means of determination is not a good thing. So really, what is the justification for the "militant" atheist. Folks like Dawkins and Harris who take a position which is very critical towards religion.

If you have an opinion on this great, if not, that's ok to.

Dawkins and Harris aren't militant atheists.

Merely disliking religion - or even being very critical towards it - isn't enough to make an atheist "militant". A militant atheist would be someone who uses systematic violence to further the "atheist cause".

This is similar to how we use the term "militant" when it comes to theists: a theist whose religious beliefs motivate them to blow up abortion clinics is militant; a theist whose beliefs only motivate them to put a pro-life bumper sticker on their car is not.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm trying to stay out of this thread as I not sure much good will come of it; if by three things you mean atheism,marxism and marxism-leninism I'll give you a low-down.

I'm glad you did, I suspect you'd know more than most. Certainly more than me. It was pretty informative actually.

What I'm kind of curious about is whether this is a separate version/branch of materialism or is it more a foundation for modern views of materialism. Actually I suppose western views of materialism.

I can see what seem to have maybe influenced the view of materialism, western materialism if that is a thing. Or is this a coincidence. Maybe the same foundation of thought which leads to atheism also leads to a materialist view.

And a rejection of religious morality/authority. I think it does but I'm not sure the argument is that straight forward.

 

[Nakosis]

Dawkins and Harris aren't militant atheists.

Merely disliking religion - or even being very critical towards it - isn't enough to make an atheist "militant". A militant atheist would be someone who uses systematic violence to further the "atheist cause".

This is similar to how we use the term "militant" when it comes to theists: a theist whose religious beliefs motivate them to blow up abortion clinics is militant; a theist whose beliefs only motivate them to put a pro-life bumper sticker on their car is not.

We've pretty much determined the term was rhetoric and I'm using the term in that since. However in usage, in usage right, militant atheist has been used to denote anti-theists. This was an earlier part of the thread which perhaps you didn't participate in. The rhetorical nature of the term has already been acknowledge.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We've pretty much determined the term was rhetoric and I'm using the term in that since.

"We"? Again: don't speak for me. I haven't agreed with anything of the sort.

However in usage, in usage right, militant atheist has been used to denote anti-theists. This was an earlier part of the thread which perhaps you didn't participate in.

No, I participated and I made the same point then. Go back and look.

The rhetorical nature of the term has already been acknowledge.

It's been ASSERTED by you. I don't agree. If you want me to change my mind, convince me.

 

[Laika]

I'm glad you did, I suspect you'd know more than most. Certainly more than me. It was pretty informative actually.

What I'm kind of curious about is whether this is a separate version/branch of materialism or is it more a foundation for modern views of materialism. Actually I suppose western views of materialism.

I can see what seem to have maybe influenced the view of materialism, western materialism if that is a thing. Or is this a coincidence. Maybe the same foundation of thought which leads to atheism also leads to a materialist view.

And a rejection of religious morality/authority. I think it does but I'm not sure the argument is that straight forward.

Dialectical Materialism is a seperate form of materialism from other forms of materialism. It's a synthesis of Hegellian dialectics and materialism and therefore diverges from western conceptions of materialism. I'm not exactly sure how, as I'm most familiar with the marxist variety.

However, there is a sort of marxist strawman called "mechanical materialism" which is a description/amalgam of various ideas in western thought. They are trying to characterise the enterity of enlightenment thought and after as a single "capitalist" ideology, and then attack it for logical inconsistency for not being consistently athiest. its hard to tell whether it is an accurate characterisation or not but its digs up some rather interesting connections between liberalism and judeaochristian ideas as the source of natural law. Basically, descartes idea of "I think therefore I am" says that consciousness comes before matter. consciousness creates matter as atoms. these atoms have no motion of there own, so this consciousness sets them into motion and follow specific mathamatical patterns because the laws of motion are constant and unchanging. If you think of Newtonian mechanics, you can start to see what they are getting at.

But the point of dialectical materialism is to reverse descartes position from "I think therefore I am" to "I am therefore I think". this has far reaching implications because it means there is no god, but also that the universe had no creation and that time and space are objective properties. this fits in 19th century science but has difficulty post-einstein with relativity, quantum mechanics, the big bang, etc- all of which don't quite fit into this neat and logical blueprint of a wholly predictable, natural and godless universe. it also eliminates free will and therefore decimates most of our ethical conceptions and it's too sublte and complex for me to know exactly what it would say is ethical in Marxism.

I'm still uncertian on exactly what Marxist ethics are. But basically, without God- the state becomes the highest power and moral authority. as it is the source of morality, it is by default "always right" even if it ultimately turns out to be wrong and makes a mistake. there is a more subtle element about what exactly are the origins of morality at an individual level by looking for an ethical constant through out all history, but the basic position is- the state decides what is ethical. The state isn't completely free to determine what it can and can't do as their are physical and economic limits to its power, as well as political problems arising from "counter-revolutionary forces in society hostile to socialism" (who therefore have to be eliminated). But its still in the same area as a Fascism, though for totally different reasons: The Party is always right- even when its not. You just re-write history so the party line is always correct and "mistakes" happen (no matter how grotesque). Orwell wasn't far off.

 

[Nakosis]

"We"? Again: don't speak for me. I haven't agreed with anything of the sort.

No, I participated and I made the same point then. Go back and look.

It's been ASSERTED by you. I don't agree. If you want me to change my mind, convince me.

I don't care if you use it that way or not. Other folks have. It's not really important. If you prefer the term anti-theist that's fine. I'm just letting you know the intent behind the thread.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't care if you use it that way or not. Other folks have. It's not really important. If you prefer the term anti-theist that's fine. I'm just letting you know the intent behind the thread.

Do you think it's constructive to equate religious violence with expressing strong atheist opinions?

A number of atheist bloggers have been hacked to death in Bangladesh recently. Is this "militant on militant" violence?

 

[Nakosis]

Do you think it's constructive to equate religious violence with expressing strong atheist opinions?

A number of atheist bloggers have been hacked to death in Bangladesh recently. Is this "militant on militant" violence?

Here the definition I found for it.

1. Militant atheism (Russian: воинствующий атеизм) is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism
And it seems to be a common usage.

Militant atheism is a derogatory neologism associated primarily with the New Atheism movement. The term describes atheists and secularists who actively campaign against religion and against religious influence in public life or government ruling. Countering religion, criticising and arguing rationally against it is somehow seen as wrong. Militant atheism is generally thought of as "being on the rise," particularly due to religious turmoil following 9/11.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Militant_atheism

 

[outhouse]

. Folks like Dawkins and Harris who take a position which is very critical towards religion.

You don't understand the fight at all.

They are critical of religious attacks on credible knowledge and education and facts, by religious fanaticism that embarrasses humanity.

I am to, but I'm far from a militant atheist.



In the eyes of a YEC or muslim I might be, but refusing facts is not acceptable in any academic circle.

 

[Nakosis]

You don't understand the fight at all.

They are critical of religious attacks on credible knowledge and education and facts, by religious fanaticism that embarrasses humanity.

I am to, but I'm far from a militant atheist.



In the eyes of a YEC or muslim I might be, but refusing facts is not acceptable in any academic circle.

Fair enough, but this I think is part of the point of the thread, to understand the fight.

 

[Jumi]

Ironically, you're quoting Einstein's remark that "god doesn't play dice". This was also the Soviet view that nature was governed by natural laws and was determined (edit: minus the god part obviously ). Einstein made that remark regarding the indeterminism of quantum mechanics. The Soviets had serious headaches over quantum mechanics because of it's indeterminism as- they said- it attributed "free will" to the atom and gave scope to interpetations of physics that conflicted with dialectical materialism and party ideology.

If I read it correctly I fully agree with all you wrote in this post.

By "dialectic materialism doesn't play dice" I meant exactly what you said. It was a sarcastic as well as direct comment meaning what it said. From my viewpoint (which I actually learned from a theist who studied political ideologies) dialectic materialism is another God that claims not to be one. The result is that belief in dialectic materialism causes trouble in understanding the real world. It is a far cry from Feuerbach who got hijacked and I believe Lysenko(of Lysenkoism fame) and others made terrible errors in science because of their beliefs in that "god". Claiming that evolution is a bourgeois idea to be rejected was a simple thing for a "believer".

On the ethical front others terrible things to humans in the name of Communism in attempt to "speed up" the development of humanity to the stage where Communism works.

I see especially Soviet Communism as another religion that will put blinders on people instead of looking at the world in an honest ethical way.

I'll get back to this message when I have more time later today.

 

[outhouse]

Here the definition I found for it.

How about something credible

Fair enough, but this I think is part of the point of the thread, to understand the fight.

The gentlemen you mentioned are fighting fanaticism, not religion.

If you people used religion in moderation and were not fanatical or fundamentalist, they would not say a word.


They are not militant atheist. People protecting academia and education and truth are not militant, there out doing the right thing do against some very bad people that would love to retard humanity.

 

[Laika]

If I read it correctly I fully agree with all you wrote in this post.

By "dialectic materialism doesn't play dice" I meant exactly what you said. It was a sarcastic as well as direct comment meaning what it said. From my viewpoint (which I actually learned from a theist who studied political ideologies) dialectic materialism is another God that claims not to be one. The result is that belief in dialectic materialism causes trouble in understanding the real world. It is a far cry from Feuerbach who got hijacked and I believe Lysenko(of Lysenkoism fame) and others made terrible errors in science because of their beliefs in that "god". Claiming that evolution is a bourgeois idea to be rejected was a simple thing for a "believer".

On the ethical front others terrible things to humans in the name of Communism in attempt to "speed up" the development of humanity to the stage where Communism works.

I see especially Soviet Communism as another religion that will put blinders on people instead of looking at the world in an honest ethical way.

I'll get back to this message when I have more time later today.

No worries. I wasn't sure when I wrote it whether you were saying it was one way or the other. I got carried away at this stuff fascinates me.

The point about dialectical materialism being a god is an interesting one. Basically, Marxists said there were "dialectical laws of motion" and that things changed by resolving internal contradictions. In terms of natural science I believe this is rather "weak" but the point was is that nature would change itself and god was no longer required as an explanation. it rules out the possibility of any form of creationism. The only way you can say it is a god is if you don't think it's true and is a dellusion and based on faith rather than "science" as marxists would cliam. the Marxist definition of science is very different from ours.

Western Science is "realist" and says our ideas are a reflection of the objective world, Soviet Science is not. it treats science as an ideology, a system of ideas that may or may not correspond to objective processes. The Western view is very good at explaining work in a laboratory and why science gets it right. The Soviet view, is much better as an account of historical changes in scientific thought. it shows the evolution (and revolutions) in scientific thought over time. this is something which is kind of pushed out of sight in the western philosophy of science because it admits the possibility of subjectivity in the scientific method. its not actually wrong. it's more a question of emphasis.

Lysenko is an odd case. To western ears, its clearly a "political" abuse of science. When you look closer at it, yes, there is still a problem that he didn't back it up with evidence, but his ideas fit closer to Lemarckian ideas of inheritence of aquired traits rather than Mandelian ones. The Soviets didn't cliam that evolution was a bourgeois idea, but said that the idea of genetics assumed innate properties (like a soul) and was therefore not considered compatable with materialism. Mandelian laws of inheritence were also used in National Socialist ideology and so were deemed "fascist". The Soviets basically chose the wrong side of the debate because it was Stalin's view and it fitted better with 19th century materialist philosophy that came from Engels understanding of nature. In the early 1950's there were a series of conferences where Scientists and Party Ideologues met to try and resolve a number of controversies accross the sciences. These were relatively free by Soviet standards (but it was still the Stalin era, so everythhing you said might come back to "get you" later on). It was not as simple as the party over-ruling the scientists, but that is what ultimately did happen. (intrestingly the conference on Physics didn't take place because the Party recognised that they needed to develop more and better nuclear bombs). There were some scientists who challanged Lysenkoism on the grounds of lack of evidence and argued that the two sides of debate in agricultural science could be reconciled but they were over-ruled.

Communism is not another religion, but represents a deeply heretical interpretation of enlightenment ideas. it falls outside the scope of (western) definitions of science but is still very intriguing. it was a form of "scientism" in explicitly treating science as an ideology but the arguments behind rejecting scientism are actually quite weak and rely on assuming materialism is false. if materialism were true or even slightly true- it gets much more intresting. The Soviets may well have got it wrong, but they were pretty much re-writing our scientific knowledge from scratch to fit with a different philosophy of nature. its like a "alternate universe" where western and soviet science diverged in the late 19th century. they are different, but its not necessarily "wrong". I suspect physicists today could probably use some of the Soviet debates over the origins in the universe as a way to re-think the big bang as they covered alot of intresting issues, such as whether Time and Space exist objectively. its a tantalising glimpse at what science could be if some of our assumptions about the nature of reality proved to be wrong or incomplete reflections of the world. it sounds crazy, but the Soviets could still be right about the philosophy of science.

[edit: imagine the chaos if suddenly we realised everything we thought we knew about the universe was wrong. everything in science is up for grabs. nothing is sacred. new discoveries to made everywhere. you'll have to forgive me if I chose to believe anything is possible. its just too cool not to. ]

 

[Augustus]

I'm still uncertian on exactly what Marxist ethics are. But basically, without God- the state becomes the highest power and moral authority. as it is the source of morality, it is by default "always right" even if it ultimately turns out to be wrong and makes a mistake.

Some passages from Darkness at Noon that you might be interested in.

“The Party’s line was sharply defined. Its tactics were determined by the principle that the end justifies the means—all means, without exception..."

“I don’t approve of mixing ideologies,” Ivanov continued. “There are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts that the rules of arithmetic are not to be applied to human units. The other starts from the basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community – which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit or a sacrificial lamb. The first conception could be called anti-vivisection morality, the second, vivisection morality. Humbugs and dilettantes have always tried to mix the two conceptions in practice, it is impossible. Whoever is burdened with power and responsibility finds out on the first occasion that he has to choose; and he is fatally driven to the second alternative. Do you know, since the establishment of Christianity as a state religion, a single example of a state which really followed a Christian policy? You can’t point out one. In times of need – and politics are chronically in a time of need – the rulers were always able to evoke ‘exceptional circumstances’, which demanded exceptional measures of defence. Since the existence of nations and classes, they live in a permanent state of mutual self-defence, which forces them to defer to another time the putting into practice of humanism …”

...

Why did you execute Bogrov?”

“Why? Because of the submarine question,” said Ivanov. “It concerned the problem of tonnage – an old quarrel, the beginnings of which must be familiar to you.

“Bogrov advocated the construction of submarines of large tonnage and a long range of action. The Party is in favour of small submarines with a short range. You can build three times as many small submarines for your money as big ones. Both parties had valid technical arguments. The experts made a big display of technical sketches and algebraic formulae; but the actual problem lay in quite a different sphere. Big submarines mean: a policy of aggression, to further world revolution. Small submarines mean: coastal defense – that is, self-defense and postponement of world revolution. The latter is the point of view of No. 1, and the Party.

“Bogrov had a strong following in the Admiralty and amongst the officers of the old guard. It would not have been enough to put him out of the way; he also had to be discredited. A trial was projected to unmask the partisans of big tonnage as saboteurs and traitors. We had already brought several little engineers to the point of being willing to confess publicly to whatever we liked. But Bogrov wouldn’t play the game. He declaimed up to the very end of big tonnage and world revolution. He was two decades behind the times. He would not understand that the times are against us, that Europe is passing a wave and must wait until we are lifted by the next. In a public trial he would only have created confusion amongst the people. There was no other way possible than to liquidate him administratively. Would not you have done the same thing in our position?”




Another example here, have spoilered it as most people probably don't want to read it and will find it annoying to scroll past.

Spoiler: Extract from Darkness at Noon

“We were the first to replace the nineteenth century’s liberal ethics of ‘fair play’ by the revolutionary ethics of the twentieth century. In that also we were right: a revolution conducted according to the rules of cricket is an absurdity. Politics can be relatively fair in the breathing spaces of history, at its critical turning points there is no other rule possible than the old one, that the end justifies the means. We introduced neo-Machiavellism into this country, the others, the counter-revolutionary dictatorships, have clumsily imitated it. We were neo-Machiavellians in the name of universal reason—that was our greatness, the others in the name of a national romanticism, that is their anachronism. That is why we will in the end be absolved by history, but not they. ...

Yet for the moment we are thinking and acting on credit. As we have thrown overboard all conventions and rules of cricket-morality, our sole guiding principle is that of consequent logic. We are under the terrible compulsion to follow our thought down to its final consequence and to act in accordance to it. We are sailing without ballast, therefore each touch on the helm is a matter of life or death.

A short time ago, our leading agriculturist, B., was shot with thirty of his collaborators because he maintained the opinion that nitrate artificial manure was superior to potash. No. 1 is all for potash; therefore B. and the thirty had to be liquidated as saboteurs. In a nationally centralized agriculture, the alternative of nitrate of potash is of enormous importance: it can decide the issue of the next war. If No. 1 was in the right, history will absolve him, and the execution of the thirty-one men will be a mere bagatelle. If he was wrong ...

It is that alone that matters who is objectively in the right. The cricket-moralists are agitated by quite another problem: whether B. was subjectively in good faith when he recommended nitrogen. If he was not, according to their ethics he should be shot, even if it should subsequently be shown that nitrogen would have been better after all. If he was in good faith, then he should be acquitted and allowed to continue making propaganda for nitrate, even if the country should be ruined by it. ...

That is, of course, complete nonsense. For us the question of subjective good faith is of no interest. He who is in the wrong must pay; he who is in the right will be absolved. That Is the law of historical credit; it was our law.

“We have learnt history more thoroughly than the others. We differ from all others in our logical consistency. We know that virtue does not matter to history, and that crimes remain unpunished; but that every error had its consequences and venges itself unto the seventh generation. Therefore we concentrated all our efforts on preventing error and destroying the very seeds of it.

Never in history has so much power over the future of humanity been concentrated in so few hands as in our case. Each wrong idea we follow is a crime committed against future generations. Therefore we have to punish wrong ideas as others punish crimes: with death.

We were held for madmen because we followed every thought down to its final consequence and acted accordingly. We were compared to the inquisition because, like them, we constantly felt in ourselves the whole weight of responsibility for the super-individual life to come. We resembled the great Inquisitors in that we persecuted the seeds of evil not only in men’s deeds, but in their thoughts. We admitted no private sphere, not “even inside a man’s skull. We lived under the compulsion of working things out to their final conclusions.”

Excerpt From: Arthur Koestler. “Darkness at Noon.”

 

[Augustus]

Not everyone who considers themselves part of a group follow the group in everything themselves. A local Marxist politician for example is studying for his PhD in Theology. He's a Christian.

The terminology of this discussion is highly problematic, and to remove such problems would require more long-winded accuracy than fits the forum genre.

I agree that someone can be both termed a Marxist and a Christian. But also think that not every Marxist represents the Marxism of Marx. To use a crude shorthand, they are sort of 'pinko' marxists

It is a bit like a believer who ignores the parts of their faith that they don't like. Marx was undoubtedly a genius and many of his ideas, ideas about capital and ideology etc., are still prescient and accurate today. Many of his other ideas were utopian, unrealistic and impossible though.

It is hard for the modern liberal Marxist to accept the decidedly illiberal implications of some of his ideas.

Propaganda from the organizations did not equal reality.

Communist propaganda and Marxist philosophy should not be confused though.

If it's fundamental then why aren't all Communists atheists?

In context, this regarded Nazi attitudes and has no need to be objectively correct.

In general, it was fundamental to the political philosophy of Marx and his adherents of that time. They realised that the basis of things such as morality was in religion, and the revolutionary must therefore seek to destroy religion, because with the destruction of religion, the foundations of society are removed and the 'building' collapses. This is a necessary prerequisite for the success of the revolution.

[it is discussed a bit in the spoilered Darkness at Noon extract in my previous post.] *edit: it is actually in the unspoilered bit*

That is only your view as theist. I'd say to that that many theists see no problem with "killing them all" since god decided who's a believer and who is not. You know where this quote comes from do you not?

Why is anybody who criticises any aspect of atheism, or highlights any potential negatives of atheism, automatically deemed a theist? I am in no way, nor ever have been, a 'theist'.

"Kill them all and let God decide", probably multiple groups, certainly reflects the attitude of the late-antique Kharijites though. Almost certainly some Christians too, 1st Crusade in Jerusalem?

I don't agree that secular humanism is Christianity-lite, it's more to do with Greek philosophy.

Christianity was infused with Greek philosophy, the separation of Church and State is probably the precursor to secularism though. The Greeks didn't make that distinction anyway.

Humanism grew from Jewish and Christian thinkers though, not from Greek philosophers. The both played a role though, no doubt.

No. And I will say that many times the evil has come from religions and the values of theism.

They are amoral - not concerned with morality - what is scientifically true or purely rational has no concern for morality.

That is how you get Marxist Communism and secular humanism from the same ideas of science and reason.

The morality part comes from human subjectivity and 'irrationality' (irrational in the sense of based on personal subjective preference rather than objective truth)

 

[Jumi]

No worries. I wasn't sure when I wrote it whether you were saying it was one way or the other. I got carried away at this stuff fascinates me.

Yes, it is the background where you come from after all and it's sure that most people will misunderstand it and what it was about.

The only way you can say it is a god is if you don't think it's true and is a dellusion and based on faith rather than "science" as marxists would cliam. the Marxist definition of science is very different from ours.

I agree. I have read soviet books on science and at a quick glance they might seem similar, they are not. When I was young and was gifted these books (the aim was of course, to convert a young atheist to communism which did not work) the introductions always focused on Marxist theory no matter what the subject was. Later the text usually was closer to what was known, but the differences and manipulation became much more apparent when I was older. I never felt inspired to go in that direction of course, the Soviets were close and I knew people who had escaped from them telling what it was really about.

Western Science is "realist" and says our ideas are a reflection of the objective world, Soviet Science is not. it treats science as an ideology, a system of ideas that may or may not correspond to objective processes. The Western view is very good at explaining work in a laboratory and why science gets it right. The Soviet view, is much better as an account of historical changes in scientific thought. it shows the evolution (and revolutions) in scientific thought over time. this is something which is kind of pushed out of sight in the western philosophy of science because it admits the possibility of subjectivity in the scientific method. its not actually wrong. it's more a question of emphasis.

Yes. It tries to see forces at work in the movements of mankind, nations and groups of people. But it's a science without convincing proof.

Lysenko is an odd case. To western ears, its clearly a "political" abuse of science. When you look closer at it, yes, there is still a problem that he didn't back it up with evidence, but his ideas fit closer to Lemarckian ideas of inheritence of aquired traits rather than Mandelian ones. The Soviets didn't cliam that evolution was a bourgeois idea, but said that the idea of genetics assumed innate properties (like a soul) and was therefore not considered compatable with materialism.

Some did claim evolution was a bourgeois idea. I have seen it in print. And it was lucky that they restricted themselves to second rate biology (similar to creationism) or they might have "won". If you read up on Soviet bioweapons research, it was lucky they were limited by Lysenko and the politics and rejecting evolution, DNA had much to do with that. Near the end of the regime they were much more efficient since it was clear that West was way ahead.

It's true that Soviets, just like the Nazis, had to reject certain scientific ideas because they weren't supporting their political ideas. For opposite reasons. The Nazis wanted a soul in things, the Soviets did not. You can't make reality bend to religious or political ideas though.

Mandelian laws of inheritence were also used in National Socialist ideology and so were deemed "fascist". The Soviets basically chose the wrong side of the debate because it was Stalin's view and it fitted better with 19th century materialist philosophy that came from Engels understanding of nature.

Nazis also chose to ignore science and choose pseudoscience over biology. It cost them much in the end.

Communism is not another religion, but represents a deeply heretical interpretation of enlightenment ideas. it falls outside the scope of (western) definitions of science but is still very intriguing.

I will disagree with this. They were misusing the word science, well ever since the beginning.

[edit: imagine the chaos if suddenly we realised everything we thought we knew about the universe was wrong. everything in science is up for grabs. nothing is sacred. new discoveries to made everywhere. you'll have to forgive me if I chose to believe anything is possible. its just too cool not to. ]

Sure, it's your choice as an individual to believe things. It's good to have dreams, but sometimes dreams in themselves even when inspirational today, act to restrict our potential in the future.