I think Jesus or the Pope have a good claim to being able to define what religion is to them. A catholic is welcome to disagree though and still consider themselves catholic. Who's gonna stop them?
My grandmother hates new Pope and thinks he's anti-Catholic. I could tell her she's wrong to consider herself catholic in light of that fact, but I don't see what the point of that would be, because she'd disagree.
I wouldn’t tell your grandma she’s not catholic but the church just might.
So what?
The conception of religion as a purely individual choice is a very bourgeoise and radical concept that does not reflect the way the vast majority of the world actually practices religion.
I mean sure, when you choose to model everyone's religion the way you have, it definitely looks like the vast majority of the world doesn't practice religion as a different model would describe, but that's a function of your model, not reality.
In short, asking questions in a materialist framework guarantees materialist answers.
I think you can absolutely use material conditions to model the role of religion in society. The problem comes in asserting that that model is the only one that accurately describes reality. I don't think that's been demonstrated.
if you don’t think materialism is the best and effectively the only way to analyze society and come to conclusions and decisions on how and why to change it, why are you a socialist?
Because of foundational moral axioms regarding the ethical treatment of human beings. This notion of socialism as a purely materialist endeavor has always struck me as a bit silly, because materialism is non-normative. Someone could read a huge amount of materialist theory, ascribe to the conclusions intellectually, and still decide to be a rip-roaring exploitative capitalist.
And what other model would you say is as or more valid?
I think find instrumentalism/pragmatism comports with my framework better, but I don't begrudge anyone their choice of materialism.
Someone could read a huge amount of materialist theory, ascribe to the conclusions intellectually, and still decide to be a rip-roaring exploitative capitalist.
It means that people who claim they adhere to x religion but they just pick and chose the parts they like (which is the norm), aren't really taking to heart the teachings of x religion. It's also a somewhat recent phenomenon (although that too depends on what society we are talking about). These people mostly just use religion to justify their personal opinions and the social mores they learned to obey to themselves. But these things are totally irrelevant when you supposedly believe there is a supernatural being in charge of the world who wants you to have a certain purpose.
This is evidenced by the fact that most of these people usually have never studied the holy texts of the religions they adhere to, and in general spend little time figuring out what their religion is even supposed to say. I don't really understand that, like, if I thought there was a God I'd be super invested in learning what the fuck he wants from me. I guess this doesn't automatically mean they don't take it seriously, but it does show that the way they learned to interact with religion is closer to something which just justifies the stuff a specific social circle thinks you should follow rather than anything religion is ostensibly about.
I think Jesus or the Pope have a good claim to being able to define what religion is to them. A catholic is welcome to disagree though and still consider themselves catholic. Who's gonna stop them?
My grandmother hates new Pope and thinks he's anti-Catholic. I could tell her she's wrong to consider herself catholic in light of that fact, but I don't see what the point of that would be, because she'd disagree.
deleted by creator
So what?
I mean sure, when you choose to model everyone's religion the way you have, it definitely looks like the vast majority of the world doesn't practice religion as a different model would describe, but that's a function of your model, not reality.
In short, asking questions in a materialist framework guarantees materialist answers.
deleted by creator
I think you can absolutely use material conditions to model the role of religion in society. The problem comes in asserting that that model is the only one that accurately describes reality. I don't think that's been demonstrated.
deleted by creator
Because of foundational moral axioms regarding the ethical treatment of human beings. This notion of socialism as a purely materialist endeavor has always struck me as a bit silly, because materialism is non-normative. Someone could read a huge amount of materialist theory, ascribe to the conclusions intellectually, and still decide to be a rip-roaring exploitative capitalist.
I think find instrumentalism/pragmatism comports with my framework better, but I don't begrudge anyone their choice of materialism.
Is La Rouche a good example?
deleted by creator
I mean, you're able to claim whatever you want and have whatever take on religion you want, but it doesn't mean you're not just fooling yourself.
What does that even mean?
It means that people who claim they adhere to x religion but they just pick and chose the parts they like (which is the norm), aren't really taking to heart the teachings of x religion. It's also a somewhat recent phenomenon (although that too depends on what society we are talking about). These people mostly just use religion to justify their personal opinions and the social mores they learned to obey to themselves. But these things are totally irrelevant when you supposedly believe there is a supernatural being in charge of the world who wants you to have a certain purpose.
This is evidenced by the fact that most of these people usually have never studied the holy texts of the religions they adhere to, and in general spend little time figuring out what their religion is even supposed to say. I don't really understand that, like, if I thought there was a God I'd be super invested in learning what the fuck he wants from me. I guess this doesn't automatically mean they don't take it seriously, but it does show that the way they learned to interact with religion is closer to something which just justifies the stuff a specific social circle thinks you should follow rather than anything religion is ostensibly about.