lest we prove Haval right when he said that atheism was authoritarian communism's apotheosis.
Can you quickly explsin what apotheosis means in this context
I think he believed that atheism leads to a state of consciousness whereby the only desires we act upon are ones for material improvements in our lives, and that this supports authoritarian communism's methodology so well that authoritarian communism lifts atheism to the state of being divine, an approaches atheism with religious ferver.
I disagree with him, but if libertarian-communists and/or anarchists become overly disparaging of theists or too overtly anti-theistic, then we risk Haval's belief becoming true.
I understand and agree with peoples arguments against religion and the opressive practices associated with them, but if we have to invent our realities (like thiests), then lets at least not dictate how others must invent theirs, otherwise we are just engaging in imposition and opression. What changes?
I think he believed that atheism leads to a state of consciousness whereby the only desires we act upon are ones for material improvements in our lives, and that this supports authoritarian communism's methodology so well that authoritarian communism lifts atheism to the state of being divine, an approaches atheism with religious ferver.
I disagree with him, but if libertarian-communists and/or anarchists become overly disparaging of theists or too overtly anti-theistic, then we risk Haval's belief becoming true.
I understand and agree with peoples arguments against religion and the opressive practices associated with them, but if we have to invent our realities (like thiests), then lets at least not dictate how others must invent theirs, otherwise we are just engaging in imposition and opression. What changes?
Dogma is a form of self-alienation. It takes many forms, but all cases of theism are among them.
To hold one's own position as incontrovertibly true, on a subject where there is no absolute evidence, is symptomatic of a separation from reality. There are only two possible causes for this. The first is a failure of observation; i.e., a hallucination, which is something I'm sure all can agree should be treated as illness. The second is willful delusion, which is indicative of an inability to understand and regulate oneself; i.e., self-alienation.
If there is one mental state any anarchist can hold as an enemy of humankind, it is self-alienation, a form of which is dogma, a form of which is theism.
...That's my view on the matter, anyway. If I'm mistaken, I'd be happy to be informed.
(I actually haven't read any Marx... or anyone else, really.)
Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, the human brain and the human heart detaches itself from the individual and reappears as the alien activity of a god or of a devil, so the activity of the worker is not his own spontaneous activity. It belongs to another, it is a loss of his self.
- Marx
Religion is a disease.
Sweeping statements are a virus.
Theism and atheism are equally dogmatic.
I'd say that's partly semantics, but also a valid point in some cases.
In my experience, the average self-proclaimed atheist does not insist there are no gods, but rather points out they are profoundly unlikely. This is an accurate observation of reality. However, all theists believe in something profoundly unlikely, so they are all necessarily delusional.
There are dogmatic atheists, of course. I happen to know one pretty well, so I wouldn't deny they exist. I consider him no less delusional than his theist counterparts.
[First post here]
I don't judge people, but I find it a remarkable feat of double-think to adhere to say Islam or Judaism while maintaining a "No Gods, No Masters" political stance.
That's because religious anarchists don't actually have that stance. They don't think 'no gods, no masters', they think that since there is an ultimate power(many Western religions have this) there is no legitimate master EXCEPT their God/Gods/whatever.
---
To be honest, I have no problem with the idea of religious anarchists. I'm religious, for one.
I'd be very wary of anyone who makes the claim that an anarchist has to be an atheist in order to be a 'true anarchist' but at the same time, I'd be very wary of a religious anarchist who says that we have to belong to specific religious faith to be a true anarchist. I just think that anarchists have to be anti-state, anti-capitalist, and anti-oppression to be real anarchists and philosophical/religious/spiritual beliefs are another thing.
Jose Perez Adan’s book, Reformist Anarchism, examines the influence of Thomas Aquinas’ “Aristotelianism” on anarchist economics. In the Christianized telos, Aquinas considered production and exchange as subservient to ultimate (divine) ends as well as proximate (earthly) ends. In Aquinas’ “commutative justice,” mercantile exchange of goods was only legitimate in order to make useful and necessary things available for the public good. Like Aristotle, Aquinas saw money as simply the translation of fixed and invariable value into an easy measure of exchange. Usury – generating money out of want without contributing to the creation of value – was considered a sort of ontological disorder, because it implied that money, rather than the labor and moral order, created value. In contrast to the political economists of later times, for whom wages were determined a posteriori by the fluctuating whims of the market, the Mediaeval Scholastics saw wages as representing an “objective value,” upheld by the mediaeval guilds that stabilized prices and ensured the compensation of producers for their toil and costs of replacing the materials used up.
http://www.thehobgoblin.co.uk/journal/h62004_DB_Value.htm
I'd say that's partly semantics, but also a valid point in some cases.In my experience, the average self-proclaimed atheist does not insist there are no gods, but rather points out they are profoundly unlikely. This is an accurate observation of reality. However, all theists believe in something profoundly unlikely, so they are all necessarily delusional.
There are dogmatic atheists, of course. I happen to know one pretty well, so I wouldn't deny they exist. I consider him no less delusional than his theist counterparts.
Semantics has a lot to do with it. I would say thaty dogma is always valid in the case of atheism and theism. I think you are referring to the difference what some people call hard and soft atheism. Semantically speaking though (as you said) soft atheism is not atheism at all. It is agnosticism with a probabilitic bent in one direction. The problem with probabilities is that they are dependant on context and variables and you will find that as context and variables change probabilistic bents will change, so it is a lot safer to make the third distinction of agnosticism (which allows for probabilistic bents whilst remaining dogma free).
Atheism = No God/s - known (often really mean knowable) fact.
Theism = God/s - known (often really mean knowable) fact.
Agnosticism = God/s or No God/s - unknown/unknowable.
The problem that often faces theistic anarchists (and even agnostics like myself) is the approach to the problem of theism and anarchy often taken by anarchists who subscribe to the old adage of "No Gods No Masters". The problem lies in context partly and also in semantics again. This was very much a response to Christian notions of the hierarchy of being which became popular in the middle ages and continues within certain churches to this day.
It is conceivable to envision and believe in a concept of God that is non hierarchical. Of course that is not to say that such a god could or does exist, but neither would I say that it does not or can not.
The problem with probability as shown by quantum mechanics is that the most likely scenarios sometimes aren't the ones that manifest in "reality". Science still hasn't got it all figured out. Look at the probability and logic of certain physical laws. Gravity is just as likely to exist as god, and it is no more logical that it should or should not exist. We take it for granted because be experience it everyday, but until science discovered a way to observe, describe and predict its effects we didn't even realise it existed. It was just something we experienced wiithout giving any thought to. It was a given that we took for granted without awareness.
It is just as probable that a God exists as it is that one or more do not. Any maths that predicts otherwise is incomplete (notice here that I said "a" God, not this or that God. It might be mathematically possible to disprove certain specific descritptions of god but that description would have to describe god's effects on observable reality so that the mathematics could disprove these - as long as god remains an undefined notion then it is neither proveable nor proveable - but like many physical laws that we now know of they came to be known through the repeated experience of effects which wee then described mathematically - unlike others who were completely conceptual and rooted in a purely mathematical hypothesis for many years until technology made them observable - as yet there are concepts of god which might yet possibly follow either of these same paths into the awareness of science and experience - or like many debunked scientific hypothesis they may not haha - what is relevant for anarchism is removing the very human systems of hierarchy and control - god is really irrelevant).
Gravity is just as likely to exist as god, and it is no more logical that it should or should not exist.
Are you going to provide any evidence to support this claim?
Until someone explains the materialist mechanism which produces my subjective experience of qualia (and for the record I don't think that's possible) then I remain unable to confidently proclaim the existence of god or gods to be improbable. The existence of the seemingly impossible - our subjective experience - casts doubt on our ability to determine the likelihood of other inexplicable things.
I reject cultural religion on rational grounds - I have no reason to accept someone else's description of the unknowable over my own.
So I am left to make a best guess. As I find our subjective experience to be one of the two most bewildering things (the other being that anything exists at all), my guess is that what we call god is actually ourselves and perhaps everything else.
The only bearing this has on my politics is that my understanding of our subjective experience makes me think that our material conditions actually matter, for us and for future generations, and we should aim to make the best of it for everyone i.e. communism.
Are you going to provide any evidence to support this claim?
This Is an Introduction to an Article Dealing Partly with This
Although as I said in discussing "god" earlier, semantically and syntactically it is an impossible piece of mathematics to provide proof for or against a phenomenon for which there is no definition.
Aside from looking at probability in terms of space-time dynamics and gravitational likelihood in different phase space contexts, it is a null statement which you want me to "prove". This is the point I was making. Until we have some observable physical pattern which we can ascribe to a force (lets call it god) then it is impossible to prove or disprove it from a mathematical or scientific stance: including its probability.
The probability of an unknown state or process is just as probable as it is improbable, and in a pre-event state any combination of spatial dynamics i just as likely as any other. Probabilities only increase and decrease as events unfold and often in web like relationships to events around them (in a multidimensionary fashion).
Gravity has a higher than zero probability right now (and it seems as if it "probably" will continue to do so), due to the relationship between physical dynamics as they have unfolded post-event. There definitely is potential for gravity to dissipate entirely as entropy increases (although improbable), especially in post-event singularities like black holes (where it is probable).
The whole thing is that the universe as we know it is just as likely to exist as any other universe with a completely different set of spacial and force dynamics. The fact that we live in and experience this one does not reduce others potential anywhere apart from within our immediate areas of space-time (and the further you get away from ours the more likely other spatial dynamics become, and the smaller you go the more likely other spatial dynamics become as proved by quantum physics).
If this is something you don't like to conceive the possibility of or would not like to benefit from then turn off your computer whose use of unreal numbers is not possible. Or is it?
In my experience, quantum physics leaves more questions that it does proofs and answers
Again, the question of religion is not one of belief or disbelief but rather one of praxis. What social relations does it uphold and encourage? I'd argue that God is pretty obviously just the idea of absolute authority born from ancient class relations. If you base your transformation of the world on such a principle then despite your best efforts you may just find yourself encouraging hierarchical social relationships in general. What is religion if not the popularisation of abstract thought? And what is abstract thought other than the thought of a humanity divided? Belief/disbelief, totally meaningless. Its about what the idea means in practice. There is no objective position to take on this subject, there is only what we want to change about the present. It's not a matter of theism versus atheism but of revolutionary social relationships versus fetishistic ones. Atheism in the idealist sense of science/enlightenment philosophy and theism in the religious/theological one are both ideologies. There is no point in framing this debate in such metaphysical nonsense. Leave that to the bourgeoisie. Practically speaking theism has no use for us. In many cases it actively continues to undermine the class struggle and ruins the lives of individuals even in our own life times.
I agree with your statement on religion. I would just posit that it will be far more practical for revolutionary action not to confuse the problem of theism with the problem of religion.
To lump the two together might prove alienating to people who might otherwise prove to be excellent comrades: theists who might feel just as strongly about the injustice of authoritarian and hierarchical religious institutions as you do.
Atheists should be free to believe in no god, and theists should be free to believe in a god and agnostics like myself should be free not to believe anything haha.
As long as we don't use our beliefs in an attempt to opress or control others then that should be the end of it.
Free association.
Libertarian communism.
Again, the question of religion is not one of belief or disbelief but rather one of pris. What social relations does it uphold and encourage? I'd argue that God is pretty obviously just the idea of absolute authority born from ancient class relations.
But if you read my post you'd see that it's possible to subscribe to a theism - In my case a tentative pantheism - which has nothing to do with authority. EDIT well, the only authority one might construe is the indirect authority inherent in our conscious preferences for a way of running things that maximizes the ability of people to achieve self fulfilment, and it looks like communism is the best way to achieve that. So, my proposed pantheistic deity wants us to achieve communism. This is no different from saying we want to achieve communism.
First I apologise for having started this thread and not joined or replied back until now but was otherwise engaged ... I was unaware too that it had generated so many replies and am pleased it has. Similarly I have not read through every post (but will) some of which I will try to reply to here.
railon: not withstanding that I had not heard of R A Wilson before I read your post I believe he described himself as an 'agnostic mystic' which I would interpret as a similar position that Einstein held which I further interpret as pan-en-thiest. It's a condition which I also use to describe my own and its a very difficult position to explain succinctly since it refers to cosmic state for which there is no analogy other than itself. That said there is an attempt to summarise it in the blog post http://w43w.com/mods-diary-06/ .
Oenomaus : if my argument has a 'the logical fallacy' because I have a belief in anarchy (which I define as the politics of self determination) then that fallacy must similarly apply to all political 'beliefs' if not belief per-say: taken to it's logical conclusion your own statement is itself fallacy... Similarly you premise that belief is without foundation is also false. I believe the sun will rise in the morning is not based on an absent of proof but on the observed fact that it rose on every previous morning. A scientist would call it a hypothesis and you allure to this in your reply but fail to see that it is belief non the less. You are quite right in your statement that there are many anarchists who claim to be theists but I would argue that it is more often the case that great theists are anarchists. In Christian theology John would fall in this category as would Jesus. As for Islam Ibn Rushd (Averroes ) a 12th century theologian, and regarded as the father of modern European philosophy including Existentialism was also an anarchist (within the definition I supply: one who self determines).
No 25: you say "Conversely, I'd argue that an existence of faith implies the fear of death" no far from it! Belief that one exist beyond death permits one to face death. If one believes that death is the end then one will do anything to avoid it (unless one is suicidal). No you are very wrong and perhaps the most famous of biblical passages is one which emphatically refutes your assertion here Yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death. I will fear no evil -- for you are with me. Could an atheist face the same without a faith?
you further state "As to an anarchist's religious convictions, it makes very little difference" oh it does.. it is always easy to be brave when no danger faces but when a gun is at ones head and one is faced with the real prospect of death ones convictions are far more likely to be abandoned if one similarly has abandoned faith. Old age has the same effect.
Red Ed: you confuse church with faith, just as many confuse religion with faith. Faith is a belief in a 'higher authority' Religion is nothing more than repeated practices and has often been used to defend oppression, i.e slavery. Faith however is what helped liberate us from it (i.e moses, emancipation).
Malva: I don't and am not influenced my Marx. I actually hold the view that Marxism as with Stalinism is very much misguided. The idea that state could replace God was foolish and doomed to failure. As with Red Ed you confuse religion with faith they are totally different animals. Your final reference to Anglicanism being a good example of this for the Anglican church was not founded on faith but on Hery XIII's desire for a divorce from Catherine; something the Pope would not grant for fear of reprisal from Spain... I call it (CoE) the biggest joke religion going; nothing to do with God whatsoever everything to do with ending a 'civil partnership'.
Red Ed: you confuse church with faith, just as many confuse religion with faith. Faith is a belief in a 'higher authority' Religion is nothing more than repeated practices and has often been used to defend oppression, i.e slavery. Faith however is what helped liberate us from it (i.e moses, emancipation).
Mate, I really don't. I'm fairly conversant in Christian theology of various types. Your definition of religion here is pretty heterodox too. You might want to lay out in more detail what you are talking about. The claim that 'religion is nothing more than repeated practices' is obviously prima facie false, but maybe it alludes to something interesting?
I don't and am not influenced my Marx. I actually hold the view that Marxism as with Stalinism is very much misguided. The idea that state could replace God was foolish and doomed to failure.
Where does Marx advocate that?
@ Greenman
People embrace the concept of an 'afterlife' or religion because it's convenient to believe that something exists beyond material reality, although there is absolutely no means to confirm this whatsoever, the rantings of 'prophets' and flawed metaphysical/ontological arguments notwithstanding. All posturing aside, they fear the unknown and resort to extremes to preserve their life just as much as any atheist would.
The bible refutes itself. Any person who isn't suffering from unbearable physical or mental distress would avoid a premature death to the best of their ability; because I would do so doesn't entail that I fear the inevitable non-existence, but in that this is the only existence available to me I would not act irrationally to truncate it for frivolous reasons, nor would I go out without a fight.
Does this mean that I would betray my principles in the face of death? No. What is there to fear about nothing if nothing is nothing at all? Your 'anarchism' would culminate in allowing yourself and others to be summarily executed to uphold the ideal of 'love,' non-resistance being more culpable for the contradiction of this ideal rather than direct action against oppressors.
You are quite right in your statement that there are many anarchists who claim to be theists but I would argue that it is more often the case that great theists are anarchists. In Christian theology John would fall in this category as would Jesus.
what?
I've heard that said - unconvincingly, to be fair - about Jesus before. But John? What definition of anarchism are you using?
A very shit one no doubt
most important thing to know is that I'm probable the only person currently alive on Earth who has met God: A good friend of mine, so I know she exists. If you are good she might pay you a visit too!
Drop some acid, then you can meet God too.
I heard Judas was supposed to be the socialist because he told Mary Magdalene that she should have given money to the poor, rather than buy smelly stuff to rub on Jesus' feet. And wasn't Jesus all like "Bollocks to the poor - give us a foot rub, love!"?
Also, isn't he all about forgiving oppressive regimes? Because I think it's pretty hard to do class struggle properly if you're just forgiving bosses and po' po' the whole time.
Most importantly, why the FUCK would god create capitalism?! What a bloody stupid thing to do. I don't trust this "god" bloke for one minute... He seems like a dickhead.
Drop some acid, then you can meet God too.
Dropping God is the new acid man bro, didn't ya hear?
'Therefore, if God existed, only in one way could he serve human liberty — by ceasing to exist.' - Lol Bakunin
I think he believed that atheism leads to a state of consciousness whereby the only desires we act upon are ones for material improvements in our lives, and that this supports authoritarian communism's methodology so well that authoritarian communism lifts atheism to the state of being divine, an approaches atheism with religious ferver.
I'm not sure how much a desire for material improvement is a perfect fit for state capitalism. If one really wanted to look at Soviet propaganda, etc., then you could just as much argue that they lifted altruistic and immaterial values to principles, and you wouldn't necessarily be getting much further in understanding them.
t is just as probable that a God exists as it is that one or more do not.
Idealism is not a matter of probability, let alone physical evidence.
I don't and am not influenced my Marx. I actually hold the view that Marxism as with Stalinism is very much misguided. The idea that state could replace God was foolish and doomed to failure.
That doesn't sound so much like Marxism as some sort of perverted Hegelianism.
I believe the sun will rise in the morning is not based on an absent of proof but on the observed fact that it rose on every previous morning.
Technically speaking, if you were to believe that the sun will rise every morning based on such an induction, you would be incorrect.
In less than two weeks time hundreds of neo-Nazis and racists will descend on the coastal town of Dover calling for Britain to “close the border”. It is vital that anti-fascists and anti-racists...
A short account of the West Siberian uprising against the Bolsheviks.
Michael Heinrich argues that Marx was not after a “Marxism” as an identity-defining “truth.” Rather, he was more interested in the critical business of undermining certainties.
Please read the posting guidelines before posting. If you see anything which falls outside them please use the down' button on the offending post to flag it for the moderators' attention, or in the case of spam, click the 'spam' button. Site admins are listed here, and feedback can be posted in the feedback forum.
Click here to register now. Logged in users:
Can comment on articles and discussions
Get 'recent posts' refreshed more regularly
Bookmark articles to your own reading list
Use the site private messaging system
Start forum discussions, submit articles, and more...
All I am saying is you can believe that human consciousness "is" god, and skip the religious bit simultaneously. Religion is a set of cultural practices and institutions that emerge from theism. In much the same way that the state emerges from society unnecessarily, it is unnecessary for religion to emerge from theism. Many of the most anarchist people are theistic (I'm thinking about ahmish etc - lets not start a huge debate on these people specifically - I realise they they still inhibit freedoms and have their own laws and hierarchies - I bring them up to illustrate that they are theists who for the "most" part reject religion - I accept they thety still have opressive and "religious" cultural practices).
I also think it is completely possible that someone can maintain a theistic stance without sacrificing their own sense of achivement or responsibility for the fruits of their thoughts and labours. I'm sure much of the externalisation of responsibility by religious people is atcually false modesty. Others are more than happy to openly thank "god" for the ability to be alive and wonderful and creative, and yet still congratulate themselves for and are proud of their achievements.
Do you think without a god humans can legitemately take credit for biological process and walking around slapping themselves on the back for "creating" life? Whether you attribute life to god or a convergence of innate physical processes, in either case humans have no more right (or in fact any at all) to take responsibility for it any kind of totality. We may take responsibility for an increasing understanding of those physical processes and an an improving ability to work with them (IVF is a good example), but the spem still swims itself, and the egg still does its own thing.
If we are to be truly libertarian in our attempts at libertarian communism, then we must be willing to look at the fundamentals of that with both negative and a positive concepts of liberty. As atheists (or agnostics as I would label myself if forced), we must be willing to challenge the freedom inhibiting aspects of "religion", but in doing so we must not inhibit the freedom of others to be religious if they are able to do so in a manner that does not inhibit other peoples freedoms.
Otherwise we engage in the same kind of illogical arguments that statists and liberals use against anarchists and communists. Namely that anarchism can not exist without descending into violence, and that communism can not exist without descending into authoritarianism. We must avoid this kind of oppressive double think lest we prove Haval right when he said that atheism was authoritarian communism's apotheosis.
More importantly we must take the libertarian aspect of our libcom seriously. That fear of the implications of theism that often plague anarchists and communists, is the same fear that lead societies to tolerate states.