Societies without God are more benevolent

[Andalublue]

Your political structure or economic system does not necessarily relate to your religious following or tolerance.

I inserted a word into your quote to make it more accurate, I think. I also think your reference to 'communistic' is important, i.e. a society with elements of communist ideals. A strictly Marxist society could not, by definition, be a deeply religious one.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I inserted a word into your quote to make it more accurate, I think. I also think your reference to 'communistic' is important, i.e. a society with elements of communist ideals. A strictly Marxist society could not, by definition, be a deeply religious one.

Yes, good point - I, not being religious, do tend to forget that many others are far more religious and it factors into their politics more.

But why can't a marxist society be a deeply religous one? :shrug: I just don't understand that connection - you'll have to detail it out to me because that's just over my head. Maybe I don't grasp it purely because I'm not religious - and thus I don't get a lot of religious-related things at all.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yes, good point - I, not being religious, do tend to forget that many others are far more religious and it factors into their politics more.

But why can't a marxist society be a deeply religous one? :shrug: I just don't understand that connection - you'll have to detail it out to me because that's just over my head. Maybe I don't grasp it purely because I'm not religious - and thus I don't get a lot of religious-related things at all.

The connection is mostly historical. One of the premises of carl marx is the use of the dialectic to explain historical movements, before that time it was generally assumed that God played a roll in shaping history. Because of that difference, marxism attracted atheists. Personally, I think its all rubbish.

Oh and I forgot to mention that there were other references in the original communist manufesto that were quite anti-religious.

 

[Andalublue]

The connection is mostly historical. One of the premises of carl marx is the use of the dialectic to explain historical movements, before that time it was generally assumed that God played a roll in shaping history. Because of that difference, marxism attracted atheists. Personally, I think its all rubbish.

Oh and I forgot to mention that there were other references in the original communist manufesto that were quite anti-religious.

The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. (Karl Marx - Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction.)

Thus, Marx's take is that religion is socially constructed. He rejects the idea of a metaphysical force working on the material world. As most political philosophies tend to be an amalgam of different theories by various theorists, it is entirely possible for communistic (but not purely Marxist) philosophies to accommodate religious beliefs.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Thus, Marx's take is that religion is socially constructed. He rejects the idea of a metaphysical force working on the material world. As most political philosophies tend to be an amalgam of different theories by various theorists, it is entirely possible for communistic (but not purely Marxist) philosophies to accommodate religious beliefs.

Exactly, there is some tradition to it that came in from Marx's time that was adopted by Russia, China, Cuba, etc, but thats all it is, tradition.

 

[Andalublue]

Exactly, there is some tradition to it that came in from Marx's time that was adopted by Russia, China, Cuba, etc, but thats all it is, tradition.

I think in many of cases, such as those you quoted, there was a desire to remove an alternative source of philiosophical legitimacy. In most societies the legitimacy of social authority is not the preserve of solely secular powers, but temporal ones too. Fixing on the purely materialist aspects of Marx's thinking allowed the state 'socialist' to undermine the influence of all non-party authority.

 

[Winston Smith]

Religious societies tend to have higher birth rates, as one can see by comparing Europe with the Middle East. I would argue that the second part of the question, "Are societies without God likely to be more benevolent," is moot. In the long run, societies without God aren't likely to be.

 

[Andalublue]

Religious societies tend to have higher birth rates, as one can see by comparing Europe with the Middle East. I would argue that the second part of the question, "Are societies without God likely to be more benevolent," is moot. In the long run, societies without God aren't likely to be.

Come again! Explain that a little more, for the benefit of a nincompoop.

 

[Winston Smith]

Come again! Explain that a little more, for the benefit of a nincompoop.

Not at all. To put it another way, I don't think the idea of Europe without God is sustainable. It means low birth rates, which means an aging population, economic problems, and a growing immigrant demographic who bring their own religion with them. In this case, Islam fills the vacuum left by Christianity.

 

[Andalublue]

Not at all. To put it another way, I don't think the idea of Europe without God is sustainable. It means low birth rates, which means an aging population, economic problems, and a growing immigrant demographic who bring their own religion with them. In this case, Islam fills the vacuum left by Christianity.

Ah! I see. Interesting. I think that the flaw with that theory might be that immigration might indeed bring more religiously minded people into increasingly secular cultures, hence reversing that trend and reinvigorating religious observance. However, I think that statistics might show (I haven't investigated this yet, but I will) that second- and third-gneration migrants are more likely to adopt increasingly less religious positions, more in line with the majoritarian culture than with their predecessors' imported values.

Of course, this is just speculation until such a time as I can find some evidence to demolish that idea, or not.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Someone else mentioned this - but now I can't find their post :shrug:

I think that what makes more of a difference is *how* they pursue their religion - we can look at the Reformation era in European History: St Batholomew's Day Massacre, the 30 Years War . . . and so on. All of that was due to the desire for a religion to have dominance over others - Catholics VS Protestants, etc. The problem wasn't the religions themselves (though many would argue that) - the problem came when they had differences and couldn't settle them without physical dispute.

Now, if they were able to come to compromise early on, rather than duke it out for over 100 years, then they would have lived a far more stable lifestyle all throughout Europe.

 

[Ikari]

It depends specifically on the people worshipping vs. the people in athiesm, doesn't it? Was the USSR or Communist China any less violent than the crusaders? Or was the north any less racist than the south during the civil war? Or is the buddhist people in nepal any less peaceful than the quakers or Amish?

The USSR and Communist China have an official god. It's called The State. Those places aren't as much atheistic as they are anti-theist; which demonstrates the problem in general with zealotry. There's not really a proper "atheist" government as that would in the end be a secular government. The communist nations didn't go after religion because of some belief that religion is inherently bad. It was a calculated move to ensure that there was nothing, not even gods, which could challenge the supremacy of the State; and thus cannot be blamed on any type of "atheist" government.

 

[hallam]

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are attempting to make.

I am making the point that with how Cohen sees secular countries his claims are not supported. And I am making the point that you see secular countries as different. Since my first point I have only been debating the article by Cohen, there is inconsistency in what is reality and what he believes.

What does 'operationalize' mean in this context?

In Cohen's article, a countries functionality means to give more aid, be more supported of progressive idea, and be more inclusive. He is wrong in his beliefs but at least i know what he is talking about. I have no idea what you mean by functional here. You obviously see the world differently than Cohen as you have already disagreed with Cohen on what is a secular nation. So I simply asked you want you mean by what it is to be a functional country.

I think you are trying to rope me in as an apologist for the full content of Cohen's article. I made it clear in previous posts that I believe the following:

I also think I made it pretty clear that the countries I am referring to when I mention 'the most secular' are those Zuckerman dealt with in his study. If you are trying to read more into my position than the quote above, then you ARE misrepresenting it and you are trying to set up some kind of strawman argument.

I have already agreed with you three times now your main point. I don't know how to be clearer that I don't disagree with you. I am not debating your position. I am debating the cited support of your position. One of the two cites you give doesn't not support your position and is factually inaccurate.

 

[digsbe]

Wrong. Statistically, atheists give less to charity than religious people. Plus, just look at some of the great atheist societies in Soviet Russia and China :roll:

 

[Andalublue]

Wrong. Statistically, atheists give less to charity than religious people. Plus, just look at some of the great atheist societies in Soviet Russia and China :roll:

Digs, we aren't discussing atheist societies, we're discussing secular, non-religiously observant societies, a quite different beast. Raising China and the USSR is, either inadvertantly or intentionally, off topic.