Christianity and the left

[adc069975]

Karl Kautsky wrote the best critique of Christianity. I find his insights very useful.

Any suggestions, in evolutionary terms, for the survival of religion in general into modernity - and for specific religions thriving.

Alienation in globalised capitalism - deracination, immiseration, emasculation etc.. Pessimism: The apparent decline of religion was bound up with the promise of secular progress (which now almost seems as if it belonged to the era of nationalism). This makes sense of fundamentalist religiosity in the case Islamic societies as being something of a nationalist response. If people are looking backwards you have to wonder what the future is meant to offer them.

I have plenty to say about this, but lots of work in progress still.

 

[adc069975]

In short, what I'm saying is that religion is not inimical to capitalism and enlightenment thought and, from the point of view of the ruling classes, as long as it is cleansed of its levelling ethos it provides rules that legitimate the social order. No bourgeois revolution saw religion wiped out. It just changed its spots to suit the new social order - and with that ideological backdrop it's inevitable that people will utilise religious language to attack power and property.

It's also probably best to add that enlightenment humanism had only a fickle friend in the rising capitalist classes who could never carry it through to its logical conclusions on a society-wide scale.

I agree apart from the emboldened. The "levelling ethos" corresponds exactly to the need of the capitalist state, because we're all equal before god - not as men. It's only less imaginary that we're all equal under the law or as abstract citizenry, yet erases class in the same manner. General equivalents before the all-seeing god and the panoptic state.

 

[Stigmata]

Well I made my annual effort to be pious by going to midnight Eucharist last night, and I thought of Urban when the Canon started to denounce free-market capitalism as a global virus.

He didn't suggest a socialist alternative though, which was disappointing.

 

[JimW]

The problem with Quakers was that they were Quietists wasn't it? Handy spiritual refuge for old rebels like Lilburne when they'd finally lost the energy to carry on a more earthly fight with Mammon.

 

[Demosthenes]

I don't know about evolutionary terms, but I read something recently about Buddhism (and new-age-eastern-spirituality) being the perfect complement to modern capitalism.

There's something in that possibly,.. I've often thought something along those lines when considering the worldview of fela for example, - which is practically received doctrine for lots of people.

In general, I've always thought that christianity and the left ought to be the best of friends, - most often I think, though, if there's no overarching, godgiven purpose to this life, then why should anyone believe it's improvable. Honestly, if I was an idealistic leftie and I didn't believe, I think I'd pretend I did, just for the sake of my aims.

 

[JimW]

There's Buddhism and Buddhism tho and you can't equate the whole lot with the Western New Age take. There were plenty of Buddhist influences on early Chinese anarchists like Shifu. ETA: And there's Taixu too of course.

 

[adc069975]

.

 

[Citizen66]

.

Fair point.

 

[untethered]

Liberation Theology

Oxymoron alert.

 

[Azrael]

In general, I've always thought that christianity and the left ought to be the best of friends, - most often I think, though, if there's no overarching, godgiven purpose to this life, then why should anyone believe it's improvable. Honestly, if I was an idealistic leftie and I didn't believe, I think I'd pretend I did, just for the sake of my aims.

Living conditions are clearly improvable in materialist terms: the real question is, why? If this life is all we have, then let's make the best of it.

Atheism is by and large an extraordinarily bleak outlook, but theism can be misused to make us tolerate an intolerable lot in this life with hope of reward in the next.

 

[Demosthenes]

Living conditions are clearly improvable in materialist terms: the real question is, why? If this life is all we have, then let's make the best of it.

Atheism is by and large an extraordinarily bleak outlook, but theism can be misused to make us tolerate an intolerable lot in this life with hope of reward in the next.

Sure theism can be and is misused.

When I imagined this character asking the question to bernie gunther, "why should anyone believe that life is improvable.?" I didn't imagine him meaning, "why should anyone believe that life is improvable in materialist terms?" Obviously we can improve some people's living standards.

The worry is that we can make any amount of technological and material improvement, but never put it to the service of the whole of humanity, because we can't outgrow our social-political-economic system, and our tendency for the strong to prove their social status by enslaving the weak.

 

[Azrael]

Sure, we need something to motivate us to spread the materialistic joy. And while theism doesn't do that automatically (thinks back to the In the Name of the Rose debate about the Catholic church spreading the wealth), theism does give life meaning, which is an essential starting block.

So erm ... yeah, theism, much going for it. No wonder I passed up on the evangelical atheist gig!

 

[Spion]

I agree apart from the emboldened. The "levelling ethos" corresponds exactly to the need of the capitalist state, because we're all equal before god - not as men. It's only less imaginary that we're all equal under the law or as abstract citizenry, yet erases class in the same manner. General equivalents before the all-seeing god and the panoptic state.

I was thinking of the radicals of the English revolution and in particular those which wanted to abolish property

 

[Spion]

theism does give life meaning

Like Santa gives Christmas meaning? I mean, you gave that up at about 5 didn't you? What's the point of 'meaning' that's clearly made up?

 

[Azrael]

Like Santa gives Christmas meaning? I mean, you gave that up at about 5 didn't you? What's the point of 'meaning' that's clearly made up?

That statement obviously depends on theism being true. As I don't believe, I don't hold that opinion myself, but I see its manifold attractions. Atheism is a bitter pill to swallow.

 

[Spion]

That statement obviously depends on theism being true. As I don't believe, I don't hold that opinion myself, but I see its manifold attractions. Atheism is a bitter pill to swallow.

Why? Your worldview must be very limited to think that

 

[Azrael]

How is saying that atheism presents us with a random and meaningless universe evidence of a limited worldview?

 

[Citizen66]

Belief is belief.

It is possible to believe in pacifism, for example, without the backing of a scientific study or religious direction. Moral codes are taught from the many rather than the few.

The biggest problem with with the four main theisms, including atheism, is that they are all are too busy arguing with each other over disagreement regarding pointless details in text instead of finding a mutual spiritual direction that suits all. Politics has too much of a hand in spiritual direction in the modern world.

 

[Azrael]

The biggest problem with with the four main theisms, including atheism, is that they are all are too busy arguing with each other over disagreement regarding pointless details in text instead of finding a mutual spiritual direction that suits all.

I agree that some adherents of theisims (and anti-theisms) waste time on semantics of no wordly imporance. But we're too diverse to find a mutual spiritual direction. Some people actually find atheism an attractive creed; others find faith (belief without evidence) a teneable position. I can empathise with both those views, but cannot hold them myself. Others will feel similarly.

 

[Citizen66]

It doesn't have to be about sky fairies. Being less materialistic is a good start.

 

[Spion]

How is saying that atheism presents us with a random and meaningless universe evidence of a limited worldview?

That's not what I responded to. You said 'Atheism is a bitter pill to swallow'. I believe that indicates a limited worldview because - on the contrary to what you seem to think - atheism recognises our place in the universe. You can't get any less limited than that.

Finding out the truth about Santa may be a bitter pill, but most of us grow out of that one

 

[Citizen66]

Finding out the truth about Santa may be a bitter pill, but most of us grow out of that one

Do you have as much of a problem celebrating Guy Fawkes as you do Saint Nicholas?

 

[Azrael]

It doesn't have to be about sky fairies. Being less materialistic is a good start.

Do you mean less greedy? "Materialism" is simply the belief that only matter can be proved to exist.

That's not what I responded to. You said 'Atheism is a bitter pill to swallow'. I believe that indicates a limited worldview because - on the contrary to what you seem to think - atheism recognises our place in the universe. You can't get any less limited than that.

Finding out the truth about Santa may be a bitter pill, but most of us grow out of that one

I never claimed that atheism is a limited worldview; merely an unpleasant one, because without God, there is no objective meaning to life, and more worryingly, no objective basis for morality.

Atheism certainly does recognise our plase in the universe: small, insignificant, and alone. As I said, I'm an atheist myself, but I don't find the belief a comforting one.

 

[kyser_soze]

As I said, I'm an atheist myself, but I don't find the belief a comforting one.

But for me that's part of the point. Rather than rely on some invented being/s from old dusty books or stories, life becomes a process of self-creation from one moment to the next. The ironic thing of course is that being an atheist and living to one's own moral code, on the presumption that you're not going around murdering people, is exactly what most religions say about taking the hard path through life - what could be harder than removing the false comfort of belief that a deity is looking out for you all the time?

This idea that belief in a God somehow delivers and 'objective basis for morality' is tosh as well - the laws of God are the laws of Man given a divine lick of paint, with suitable sanctions because of it.

 

[Demosthenes]

This idea that belief in a God somehow delivers and 'objective basis for morality' is tosh as well - the laws of God are the laws of Man given a divine lick of paint, with suitable sanctions because of it.

That's a slightly different issue. I didn't claim that there is no objective morality without god, I claimed that if there's no God then humanity is an accident, and that if humanity is an accident it's rational to suppose that there's no point in being concerned about right and wrong in politics, since there's no reason to suppose that our collective future is under our control, and possibly good.

 

[kyser_soze]

Well I was replying to Azrael really, but that logic chain you've followed is pants, quite frankly. Why is it rational to suppose that because humanity's existance is down to chance that there's no point in creating, and being concerned with, concepts like right and wrong? They go directly to the heart of the struggle to survive long enough to reproduce the next generation of humans - as concepts they help keep the most fearsome competitor for our survival - ourselves - in check and help create the stable environment we require to nuture and raise our offspring (which for humans is a very, very long period compared with pretty much any other species).

The rest of your chain of logic is, once again:

 

[Demosthenes]

Well I think it's obviously true.

Elsewhere I've put this question: As if from a rational amoral capitalist to an idealistic atheist leftie.

If humanity is an accident, why should I suppose that I should do anything other than do my best for myself, and the people I care about? I don't believe your dreams of a better future or a better-organised more ethical society are realistic or attainable, - I think humans are innately selfish and that capitalism suits our nature.

What's your answer. ? I don't think the atheist leftie has a convincing one.

Whereas I do: I say that humans are innately good, and are designed for a much better world than the one we currently live in.

 

[Demosthenes]

I guess the fractal and caption is your substitute for an argument. Perhaps an indication that you don't have one?

 

[Dillinger4]

I think the fractal caption is pretty apt, myself.

 

[kyser_soze]

I say that humans will try and do the best they can to survive, the flourish, in any given environment. I say that humans aren't innately anything, that our physical and cultural environment create and shape, but not determine our responses and behaviour (as well as each other); that because as a species we've never managed to exist in large numbers without creating hierarchies based around monopoly of information being held and exploited by a small elite, we've got the current environment we live in; that the continued reliance on superstition and some form of super-human deity, force or other divine entity, that may or may not be sentient, prevents us from accepting that it's up to us to make this world the better one, using our own rules, than wait for the next one where it will all be better.

So no, I don't think it's even remotely obviously true. In fact I think it's the biggest, most pernicious and damaging lie perpetuated by and on the human species by itself, and I say to you now that you are a liar to yourself in following it.